- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:51:41 -0700
- To: "'Michael[tm] Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Frank Olivier'" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > The tone of this message to the leadership of this working group is out > of line and disruptive. You have been warned many times not to abuse > the group list with unproductive rhetorical posturing like this. This > is the wrong way to make the points you are trying to make. Michael, Sam's dismissal of this concern based solely on Janina's language use is also unproductive and disruptive. The cavalier dismissal of a serious response from another Working Group at the W3C as 'dissent' without taking into apparent account the substance of that concern is both frustrating and offensive to me, and I will make no bones about that. I have contributed a significant amount of time and effort on Issue 204, including participating in the writing of a Change Proposal (2 actually), as well as participating in a 90 minute+ Face-to-Face discussion recently on this topic (one which most would classify as productive). To now hear that concerns over emergent RFC 2119 language is 'dissent' that will not stop the Working Group from moving forward is a veiled threat that these concerns will not be taken seriously. I place that squarely on the Chairs (and/or Sam, who authored that response). > > I am recommending to the chairs that they revoke your posting > privileges for two weeks. As is their right and choice. Silencing me here will not stop me from pointing our when there is a problem, now or in the future. JF
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:52:32 UTC