W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Formal Recorded Complaint

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:27:28 -0500
Message-Id: <53500896-9EB5-4CFC-ADD9-E7ED1977206D@robburns.com>
To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>

I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed by Sam in this  
thread. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the thread, but I hadn't seen  
any calls for anyone's expulsion here. There are many steps that can  
be taken before we're at a point of expulsion. However, there has  
certainly been a tone on the list that does not foster minority  
viewpoints. I would imagine it has a chilling effect on  
participation. The existence of several people expressing this  
viewpoint should be weighted heavily since it likely reflects on the  
tip of an iceberg of concerns not expressed by others who have been  
discouraged from continuing their participation with this list.

I've said this before, but everyone posting should consider how they  
can shape the discussion in good faith. Rather than dismissing  
proposals by other participants it would be more fruitful to begin a  
dialogue that understands the problems the participant is seeking to  
solve and how those problems can be addressed within the confines of  
the current draft. Single sentence replies are likely to accomplish  
very little in advancing understanding between participants.

quote Sam Ruby
I've reread and reread that paragraph, and still come to a different  
conclusion.

"disruption constitutes an abuse ... Interactions of this type are  
fundamentally different from 'the lone voice of dissent'"
unquote Sam Ruby

quote Maciej Stachowiak
On the ohter hand, immediately after mentioning the 'lone voice of  
dissent' it says "In other words, individual bad faith should not  
trump community goodwill".
unquote Maciej Stachowiak

Reading that sentence in context, however it's not talking about lone  
dissenters as the bad faith participants. It is talking about  
individual (and this could be several people; it doesn't have to be  
one) disrupters who try to trump community goodwill. I think it would  
be twisted to read this as the disrupters somehow saving the  
community from the minority. The community that prides it self on  
consensus  building, does not need disrupters to step in to save them  
from the minority dissenters.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 23:27:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:47 UTC