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

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

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:20:26 +0100
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3F052239-F540-4E13-BA0E-F312EA6CBC39@btinternet.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Doug,

did you intend a personal reply to be copied to www-archive?

do you deny that you told me on irc, iirc, that I would not be welcome  
at Cannes, and that the SVGWG would not have time to discuss issues I  
might wish to raise.

regards


Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.openicon.org/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764


On 20 Jul 2008, at 19:59, Doug Schepers wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 22 July 2008 15:21:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:19 GMT