W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Is the TAG structure harmful? [Was: Fwd: Forced Resignation]

From: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:32:40 +0100
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2B07F6EE-A43F-4B13-B91A-75D763AE5BA7@gmail.com>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Gentlemen you canít fight in here, this is the TAG.

In all seriousness, I appreciate the spirited debate but if we can try to keep the discussion to the issues at hand and away from ad hominem remarks that would be appreciated.

Eric - if you would like to critique the direction in which the TAG is going we are all ears. Please try to be constructive in your feedback and also feel free to contribute to our work here or on github.com/w3ctag.

And, to address the original question, I do not think the structure of the TAG is harmful. As Iíve stated on numerous occasions, I think the election system has been working well. I do think the issue at hand of whether multiple TAG members should be able to share affiliations is something we need to adjust, but we do need to tread lightly and make small adjustments.

Thanks,
Dan

On 2 Jul 2014, at 13:10, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> 
>>> [...] I only occasionally contribute "political" opinions.
>>> Just to get them on the record.
>> 
>> If you don't submit facts, how is this helping? The people that
>> disagree with you will find you rightfully "marginalized" as you are
>> not contributing anything of discernible value and you are wasting
>> time you could have spent with the dog.
>> 
> 
> Because the facts have already been brought up by others. I don't often
> just hand out the mindless "+1", preferring to point out in detail when
> the perfectly-valid concerns of others are being rejected out-of-hand,
> as recently compelled me to re-engage ietf-http-wg over implicit C-E.
> 
> Further re-hashing the facts wouldn't have served any purpose. Pointing
> out that the WG needed to step off and reconsider architectural
> ramifications proved much more effective, possibly because someone not
> named Roy or Julian reinforced it? Not my desired result, but far
> better than what was proposed.
> 
> So, not a waste of my time, since my posting is limited to when I'm too
> exhausted from spending time with the dog to do anything else but catch
> up on Web architecture -- which I remain passionate about despite my
> utter disillusionment with the direction it's taken (and the reasons for
> it).
> 
> -Eric
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 12:33:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:33 UTC