W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

delete cut it out

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:15:17 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010101c5e18d$3cb461e0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Please delete 'cut it out' from previous email and re-read. 

That was intended to apply only to the "don't call people names" part 

But it changes the tone of the rest of the memo. - which it was not intended
to do. 

So here is the memo without the expletive.


This discussion is moving from productive to circular to destructive -
including starting to talk about other people and posters -  which is
strictly off limits.

This mail list is to provide information to the working group.    

- Putting information here is very useful.  

- Reposting the same information is not.  

- Stating personal opinions is not. 

- Sending a post to just say that you agree with someone is not.   We are
not voting on the list and it adds no new information for the group to

 The group does not make decisions based on the number of times the same
argument is made by the same person or by another person.   And if the
working group needs to know the number of people who hold an opinion it
needs to look further than just this list. 

 The group makes decisions based on the facts and the arguments or ideas
presented.  Number is not the key - but the facts or arguments themselves. 

 I have been gathering arguments and will post something as soon as I can
summarizing them and making sure that I have them all.  In the summary there
may be more arguments on one side or the other.   

 But the number of arguments won't be the deciding factor either.   I have
seen times when there were 10 reasons for one choice and two for the other
but one of the two was compelling enough to make the decision.

 So please - do not keep restating the same arguments without new facts.

 Please do not say "me too" if there is not new information to add.

 Please do not start questioning the group's motivations or morals...nor
questioning the motivations or morals of members of the list.   

If you don't agree then don't.  If you have a counter argument (that has not
already been made) then make it.  

Please don't throw stones 

 Have some faith in the working group or don't have any faith.   That is up
to you. 

 If you feel the working group or its leadership is biased or inappropriate
- file a  comment with W3C.  The place to start it Judy Brewer.

 But this list is not for that kind of thing.  It is here to make sure the
working group has as much good information as it can to assist it in its

 SHORT SUCCINCT posts are the most helpful, the most read, the easiest to
capture and understand.    If you must write a long one - please start it
with a short summary.  Sometimes I read a post 3 times and am not sure the
point that the author is trying to make (or sometimes even which side of the
question they are arguing).   

Thanks everyone.   This is hard stuff.  There are few clear cut issues.
And no easy answers.



Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/


Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 22:15:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC