W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > February 2009

disinterested chairing [was Re: summary="" in HTML5]

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:39:39 -0500
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2C20EA2B-9C2A-4C2C-BD41-225706FF2439@robburns.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Hi Sam,

On Feb 25, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Robert J Burns wrote:
>> I say malicious since the continued repetition of the fallacious  
>> arguments seem directed at ensuring such information is not made  
>> available to visually and cognitively disabled users.
>
> The above statement is neither productive nor acceptable.

This is clearly taken out of context. I did not impute motives here  
(though the selective quoting certainly makes it look like that).  
Instead, I lamented the problem I have raised repeatedly that the  
editor continuously repeats the same fallacious arguments and then I  
posed the question why. Repeatedly the editor uses a limited  
repertoire of digs to shoot down legitimate arguments. Often these are  
done in ways that are clearly disingenuous such as when Ian uses one  
argument with one WG  member and then states the opposite with other  
WG members. For example claiming that @summary is not visible in one  
thread and then claiming in another thread that we cannot say anything  
about browser UI and the visibility of something like @summary

It is equally bothersome that the editor continues to do this without  
any intervention by the chairs of the WG. These responses have been  
childish and insulting to other members of this WG (not only me). Such  
behavior is also unacceptable and not only unproductive but even  
counter-productive.

On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> William Loughborough wrote:
>> By leaving out the modifying clause "however, one does wonder why  
>> the resistance to something so obviously benefitial is so  
>> *strong*." you have done David a disservice. He was clearly  
>> "wondering" about resistance and not trying to use bad manners.
>
> David did himself a disservice.  If the remainder were a separate  
> email, I would have been actively trying to assist him with that  
> effort. However, it was not a separate email.  There is no point in  
> reading past text that condones the original behavior.

Sam, I think you do yourself, the WG and the W3C a disservice by  
taking a one-sided stance like this. David did not condone anything.  
He merely said that if anything is inappropriate it can be ignored.  
Nothing about that statement condones inappropriate behavior and  
nothing about that statement justifies ignoring David's subsequent  
remarks. If anything David's suggestion of ignoring the behavior  
reinforces your stance.

However, you're needlessly exhibiting defensiveness here when the WG  
instead needs you to be be a disinterested leader. Arguments that you  
are justified in ignoring David's or anyone's remarks should not come  
from such a disinterested leader. Also, while a WG chair should  
respond forcefully to unacceptable and unproductive behavior, a chair  
should always do so in a disinterested fashion and not single out one  
side and let others slide.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:48:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:01 GMT