W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Dirty Politics (was Re: AT&T's Dirty Politics)

From: James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:39:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUEViAjQe4qNEtIhfv4Wbnt9MAg148CW1n0Nx5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
I am sorry if I offended Bryan but I can't in good conscience
apologize to anyone supporting a definition of internet activity which
includes some but not all quality of service metrics.  I am very
thankful to Bryan for supporting the earlier changes for speech
support, and I appreciate that tremendously.  I did not author the
email that I forwarded, but any consumer can understand the issues

I have asked for a poll on the question of what information is
necessary to decide which internet connections in a multi-homing
situation are active. I predict that the different constituencies will
have different opinions about which metrics to include.  Carriers with
problems in some areas will naturally be opposed to measurements of
those areas.

First principles support the idea that we should try to be comprehensive.

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:59 AM,  <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> A strong +1.
> In addition, lets not bring up scoping arguments unnecessarily. It was pretty clear that Bryan was using the term informally when explaining the focus of the concern his email was about.
> regards, Frederick
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Co-Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
> On Jul 5, 2010, at 9:37 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
>> James,
>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 22:52 , James Salsman wrote:
>>> I received the message below pertaining to AT&T's position on IANA-
>>> and ICANN-compatible DNS services, a flag or more detailed information
>>> for which we have been discussing in relation to statistics which web
>>> device and API users might reasonably want to have available in their
>>> System Information when making connection activation decisions (e.g.
>>> selecting an activeConnection) in multi-homing and similar situations.
>>> I would like you to have the opportunity to respond. I hope you will
>>> be able to join those of us who expect conformance to DNS RFCs.  If
>>> you are unable to do so because of the position your corporation has
>>> taken, please inform the group.  You know that I consider such
>>> affronts against professional standards of service quality a very
>>> serious matter, and that I have a pending complaint against you for
>>> attempting a baseless claim that these issues are out of scope.
>> This message is, quite simply, out of line. And it is incompatible in tone and content with the principles of respectful cooperation that govern interactions on W3C mailing lists.
>> Network Neutrality is a policy topic over which this group has no bearing whatsoever. We might have a lot of fun if it were, but that is not the case. It makes your recurring mention of it as well as insistence on having it be considered as part of what are orthogonal components altogether off-topic.
>> That much may be an honest mistake. But since you mention "dirty politics", I cannot fail to point out that the only person resorting to ad hominem attacks, attempting sullying by association, mentioning "eavesdropping agencies" is you. I don't like dirty politics anywhere and they will be kept out of here.
>> Feel free to dislike AT&T as much as you like. There are plenty of places where you can air those sentiments. But you don't ever get to trash talk or attempt to browbeat people here.
>> You owe Bryan an apology.
>> --
>> Robin Berjon
>>  robineko — hired gun, higher standards
>>  http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 15:39:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:21 UTC