W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Re: revert requests

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:06:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4DFC0816.5040401@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>


On 6/17/2011 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 08:51 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Well, I am not a working group member, so that leaves me out. Which you
>> very well know.
>
> I also very well know that this is entirely by your choice.
>

No, it was not my choice.

Several months ago, I expressed some concerns about discriminatory 
behavior and bias exhibited by members of the HTML WG towards women. 
Frankly, at the time I was unhappy enough about the persistent problems 
to even considering asking the ACLU about possible actions. However, I 
wanted to see what other options I could pursue within the W3C.

The W3C leadership did not respect the confidentiality of my concerns 
and sent them on to you three co-chairs, whereby you sent me an email 
ripping me a new one because I dared express these concerns to the 
leadership. And you have consistently thrown up walls and roadblocks to 
any action I've taken since.

Yes, I have joined the group twice. And I've quit twice. Frankly, in 
both cases I was tired of being taken to the wood shed by you or one 
some other members of the group, while you tolerate some of the most 
outrageous behavior on the part of other individuals.

I don't want to be part of the group because life is too short to 
experience the frustrating inconsistency that is a hallmark of the 
group's processes.

However, I did consider joining one last time, because every time I 
would try to provide feedback or change proposals, following group 
procedure, you would throw up some rule or another that required my 
membership.

Even the last change proposal, you demanded I provide other members to 
agree to what I stated before you would accept it. You have never done 
this with any other individual that I know of.

When I did, reluctantly, ask to join a third time, you sent me a 
requirement that I had to agree to stipulations that were not asked of 
other members of the group. Oh, I suppose I could understand the "Last 
time, I can't quit again", though frankly -- does it really cause you 
that much work? But you also demanded that, in so many words, I have to 
"behave" myself. Not agree to what other members agree to, but a special 
demand above and beyond the group membership agreement.

Consider what started all of this, and then consider your request. Can 
you possibly see the problem with this request?

> You can call bullshit[1] if you like, and direct all of your anger at 
> me, but all I did was quote long standing and published policy -- and 
> point you in the direction of how you can effect change
>

I am angry. You're allow procedure and bureaucracy to form walls that 
allow some to participate and others to not, and the end result is that 
the HTML5 document is not the best it can be. By a long shot.


> As to you not being a working group member, you won't let people talk 
> about it[2], but you continue to bring it up.  I ask you to pick one. 
> Either discuss fully why you chose not to be a member of the working 
> group, or don't bring this up again.
>

You just got it. Even though it required exposing that which I had 
didn't want to expose--a particularly difficult and painful experience 
with the W3C and HTML WG leadership.

>> I was under the impression that HTML5 was in Last Call, and open for
>> review from people outside of the group.
>
> Comments will turn into bug reports, bug reports into issues, and 
> issues into decisions.
>
Is that by today's rules? Or tomorrow's? Or are we playing by W3C rules? 
Or WHATWG's?

It's so hard to keep everything straight. It changes so much.

>> I was also under the impression that there was a procedure in place to
>> control major changes to the HTML5 specification. The addition of CORS
>> and crossorigin is a major change.
>
> I cited the procedure that is in place, and encouraged you to 
> participate in the bug report on that procedure.
>
Again, to be frank: it's BS. This is Last Call. The editor should follow 
the same procedures required of every member of the group when it comes 
to a major change.

We shouldn't have to, at this time in the process, spend the next 
several months trying to spot the major changes that the editor 
introduces without any warning or any previous discussion. What makes 
things worse is that not ony are we having to deal with major 
differences between the W3C and WHATWG HTML documents, but now even the 
Last Call and editor's drafts of HTML5 at the W3C are significantly 
different--differences not introduced through the procedure you hold so 
dear.

You asked those of us on the outside to help you to make HTML5 the best 
it can be, and then you immediately shut the doors in our face.

Or should I say, some of our faces.

>> There was no justification for adding this change. It was just plopped
>> in after a minor discussion in a non W3C email list. It was not given
>> due diligence. I was assuming, from past communications issued by the
>> co-chairs of the group, that the person who wants to add the major
>> change is the one who must provide a technical argument justifying the
>> addition--not up to those of us who disagree with the change spending
>> the next six months fighting for something to be removed that was added
>> after a few hours of discussion in an IRC and a non-W3C email list.
>
> I cited the procedure that is in place, and encouraged you to 
> participate in the bug report on that procedure.
>
>> Is HTML5 is Last Call or not? Does the HTML WG invite outside comments,
>> or not? If so, then provide a procedure in place for those outside the
>> group to actually participate without having walls throw into our faces.
>
> HTML5 is in last call.  Outside comments will result in bug reports.  
> We are following the procedures that we have documented and agreed to.
>
>> And please: consistency in responding to different individuals would be
>> appreciated.
>
> And a request from me: if you ask a question about a policy, and I 
> point you to a bug report, please don't ignore that response and ask 
> what amounts to essentially the same question again.
>
> We are following the documented procedures.  The way to change those 
> procedures is via bug reports.  Until those procedures are changes, 
> they are the procedures that we are operating under.
>

Then what is the procedure to prevent the editor from making a major 
change to the HTML5 specification without first bringing it up in 
discussion in the group?

>> Thank you
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://twitter.com/shelleypowers/status/81886893989560321
> [2] http://twitter.com/shelleypowers/status/79659265396178944
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 02:06:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:36 GMT