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

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

From: Peter Linss <plinss@csswg.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:13:30 -0800
Cc: Eric Willigers <ewilligers@gmail.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <2BD8C8F8-0AC3-44D0-B203-BC4C89978AB0@csswg.org>
To: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:05 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.

Your comment was neither simple nor neutral.

> 
>  * I  was  personally   accused  of  having  been
>    rude,  disrespectful,   abusive,  off-putting,
>    ignorant, and possibly incorrigible.

Rudeness, disrespect, and abuse are viewed in the eye of the recipient, not the offender. How you interpret your behavior is irrelevant. If those on the receiving end of your comments feel that you were being rude, disrespectful, or abusive, then you were. When multiple people tell you that your behavior falls into any of those categories, it’s time to pause, listen, and reflect before responding.

Also, at no time did I, or anyone else use the terms "off-putting”, “ignorant", and "possibly incorrigible”. Your dishonest and easily disprovable false statement to the effect constitutes an ad-hominem attack and is a further violation of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

> 
>  * I  was then  denied  a  right of reply;  I was
>    institutionally barred from responding on GitHub.

The thread on GItHub was locked due to comments that are out of scope made after the issue was closed. We have a desire to keep our working space clear of irrelevant nonsense. You were not denied a “right of reply” as evidenced by the fact that you just made one. You were also not "institutionally barred”, that thread was closed by a single person using their own judgement. And I stand by my choice.

> 
> These reactions have been shockingly authoritarian. At best,
> they assume bad faith,  and at worst they are based on straw
> men.

Your behavior to date has been that of a troll. Some more reading material you might find enlightening: http://tantek.pbworks.com/w/page/19403022/TrollTaxonomy

> 
> I  never  demanded anything from anyone.

You are clearly demanding to be heard in a space that is not yours, and that you are not making useful or meaningful contributions to.

>  Ironically, others
> are demanding that I keep quiet, or that I feel shame.

No one has made any such demands of you. We simply took steps to keep our working environment a positive one. 

You are, however, invited to improve your behavior and become a better person. Just no longer on my time.

> 
> 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:
> 
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-archive/2019Feb/0735.html
> 
>  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.

And as I said, the removal of that comment was a *favor* to you. Since you’ve now taken additional steps to keep it in the public record, I will do nothing to help you further in this regard. Personally, I’d rather not have every rude thing I ever said easily searchable by every future potential employer trying to get an insight into my personality to see if I’d be a good hire.

As to your original comment, there is no formal process at play here that requires responses in 23 days or less. This is simply your opinion of what you’d like others to do on your behalf. Others who have jobs and lives that do not cater to your personal whims. 

Claiming your personal opinion is “objective” is nonsense and “indisputable” is a classic example of authoritarian behavior on your part. 

As I said above, your behavior here is that of a troll and is not welcome in the community we have built and work hard to maintain. 

Don’t bother responding to me as I have exactly zero further time and energy to spend on your nonsense. Email filters are in place. 

If you are unwilling to modify your behavior, perhaps you might find 8chan a more suitable environment for your antics than W3C.
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2019 01:14:06 UTC

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