W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2019

Re: [w3c/csswg-drafts] Address typo in ellipse() syntax (#3618)

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:40:40 +0000
To: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <plinss@csswg.org>
CC: Eric Willigers <ewilligers@gmail.com>, "public-css-archive@w3.org" <public-css-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C80FA772-CC35-415F-A6F9-536C0E57B2FC@adobe.com>

Let me suggest that if you want to contribute to a group you are a stranger to, you should consider the opinions of the people in the group. Ask questions instead of making statements. Find useful things to do before raising a fuss. And if how a group operates isn't to your taste, find somewhere else to be.

It was rude for you to complain that things were not happening according to your personal sense of schedule.

It is rude now that you are wasting our time on the response below. There's nothing useful for us or for you in this.

I am not going to ban you from participating just yet, but I'm perfectly happy to if you keep arguing. And given how you've conducted yourself here I plan to hold any future contributions from you under very strict scrutiny. We aren't interested in anything you've added to the discussion in this pull request or in this note.



´╗┐On 3/1/19, 3:15 PM, "Michael Witten" <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 01 Mar 2019 09:47:44 -0800, Peter Linss wrote:
    > Michael, frankly  the tone of  your comment was  rude and
    > disrespectful if not outright abusive. IMO it was also in
    > violation  of the  [W3C Code  of Ethics  and Professional
    > Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/).
    > If  I were  you  I'd  be grateful  that  there _isn't_  a
    > readily  accessible record  of  your  behavior. Alan  was
    > doing you a favor by  deleting it. But instead you choose
    > to  double-down  and  suggest  that  demonstrating  being
    > abusive is the way to get things done.
    > This  is not  acceptable and  is  not the  way to  foster
    > involvement in a community where many of the participants
    > are volunteering  their time  uncompensated. You  have no
    > right to demand action by anyone for any reason.
    > Not all  input is  welcome, and silencing  disruptive and
    > disrespectful input  actually does **more**  to encourage
    > future contributions from people who  don't care to be at
    > the receiving end of such behavior.
    > Perhaps   you'd  benefit   from  reading   some  of   the
    > educational materials  of the [Positive  Work Environment
    > Task Force](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#Education).
    Let's review:
      * My simple, neutral, impersonal comment about a
        process was deleted.
      * I  was  personally   accused  of  having  been
        rude,  disrespectful,   abusive,  off-putting,
        ignorant, and possibly incorrigible.
      * I  was then  denied  a  right of reply;  I was
        institutionally barred from responding on GitHub.
    These reactions have been shockingly authoritarian. At best,
    they assume bad faith,  and at worst they are based on straw
    I  never  demanded anything from anyone.  Ironically, others
    are demanding that I keep quiet, or that I feel shame.
    By deleting my comment,  one  makes it nearly impossible for
    others to draw any conclusion other than that which has been
    defined by those who have the authority bits.
    My comment was this:

      If it takes more than 23  days for someone to resolve this
      pull  request, then  there  is  something objectively  and
      indisputably wrong with the review process.
      It has taken more than 23 days.
    I stand by it.  The severe and inexplicable indignation that
    it has provoked is perhaps evidence of its merit.
    Michael Witten

Received on Friday, 1 March 2019 23:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:26:57 UTC