W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:14:17 +0200
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <D450DFC5-9C20-4361-BF87-76F187680BB2@apple.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 8:33 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> On 14/04/15 17:04, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> Your debating tone and technique leave quite a bit to be desired, and it’s beginning to get to me. Could you please try to avoid characterizing positions you disagree with as “pointless and conservative”, especially when points have, in fact, been made, that you have not even tried to refute?
> 
> David, three things:
> 
> Second, I have the feeling the current proposal is over-conservative
> for false "safety" reasons and I find it therefore pointless or at
> least a weak - too weak - compromise that does not solve the original
> issue.

You characterize here the reasons as “false” without, again, actually addressing them. Yet again you are characterizing positions rather than debating them, trying to establish that they are “false” by repeated assertion rather than debate.

> I don't think "conservative" and "pointless" are offending
> or vulgar.

They are, when, as here, you fail to address the points.

> You made your points, and I very strongly disagree with them.
> If I can't say why (conservative, pointless, complicated, ambiguous),
> there is no debate.

But you don’t say why.  You simply dismiss positions you disagree with as “false”, “pointless”, even when the point of those positions has been repeatedly given.

> Third, you said you want to "move on" and have agreed with Chaals
> on it, just as if you spent too much time on this while there is
> still input - from me, bkardell and oh wait a co-chair of the TAG - on
> this issue.

Brian made specific points and suggestions and I responded to them. The chair of the TAG didn’t, but indicated that while he preferred something else, he could live with this, and … preferred that we move on. It was his suggestion, to which I (and others) concurred.

> This is another debating technique there is a lot to say
> about. Even when a specification seems to have stabilized, we're able
> to relaunch the debate when important points are made. Why is it
> different here?

I’d be perfectly happy to debate points, but so far you haven’t made any. Under those circumstances, I think moving on is entirely appropriate.



David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 08:14:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 April 2015 08:14:52 UTC