W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2008

Re: 2nd Call: Full Potential: Who's counting?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <48838B17.8020400@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>

Hi, Jonathan-

(This is a personal reply, not an official W3C comment.)

Jonathan Chetwynd wrote (on 7/18/08 6:53 AM):
> 
> **Members of working groups are interpreting the current charters to 
> prevent discussion of whether their charter is actually meeting the 
> needs of end-users.  I have personal experience of this in respect
> of public lists and or phone conferences for WAI, SVG and CSS groups

Nobody on the SVG WG said or did any such thing, and you know it.  I 
read every email on that list, and I take into account even 
non-technical feedback that might somehow require a change to our 
specifications, and the SVG WG is very receptive to the needs of users 
and authors.  I myself spend quite a lot of time thinking about how 
graphics can be made more accessible, building examples and test cases, 
and working with other groups inside and outside W3C to work toward that 
goal.  I would probably spend even more time if I had it.

So, I think you owe the SVG WG a retraction and an apology for your slander.

In fact, I tried to engage you, Jonathan, to contribute in a 
collaborative and productive way in the SVG Interest Group, but you said 
you didn't have the time.  I went through considerable effort to create 
an IG to do exactly what you're asking: engage users and authors who 
have different backgrounds (designers, non-English-speakers, people with 
accessibility needs) at a social and semi-technical level, to drive use 
cases for our specs.  The first thing you did upon joining was to malign 
and complain about the IG, in emails to the public lists and me 
privately, and on the IG wiki... before we'd even got a chance to get 
started.  This kind of counterproductive and negative attitude calls 
into question your willingness to work with others (which is critical in 
a large organization) to make the needed change, rather than just 
standing on the sidelines complaining.

Finally, you told me you don't have time to participate; your reason 
(getting involved in a new activity) is understandable... but it seems 
to have made you no more sympathetic to the fact that all of us are 
busy, too.

I find it amusing that you complain that WG participants are not 
engaging in accessibility, and cry foul at being told not to post on a 
certain subject, in light of you telling me to "consider not replying to 
emails that contain the keyword 'accessibility'". [1]

I suspect that you would find a more receptive audience to your use 
cases and requirements, and to your claimed constituency, if you were to 
try a less divisive and more cooperative approach.  I suggest you watch 
this video that discusses "poisonous people" [2], and reflect how this 
might affect how you engage in a dialog on W3C lists.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Oct/0021.html
[2] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645

Regards-
-Doug
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:00:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:18 GMT