W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10524] Please clarify procedure and recourse for non-working group members when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:02:15 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OvCQ3-0004dy-Vr@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #9 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2010-09-13 17:02:14 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until
> > sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally
> > defined. 
> > 
> > You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not
> > another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.
> Bias such as the following
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100913#l-689

I do not see how the bug that that IRC log points to is an indication of bias. 
Please refrain from posting topics unrelated to the original bug reported here. 

> Where all I have to do is comment on a bug and the W3C team rep decides to
> change the rules of what gets posted to HTML-WG. 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules of HTML WG team membership. 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules about who could post to the
> HTML WG, following my postings to this email.

Post-hoc ergo Proper-hoc is a fallacy[1].  In this case, it was this very bug
that prompted the effort that led to the DiscussionGuidelines[2] being posted.

> Do we see a trend here? 

Not the one that you are implying.  The only trend here is that Laura files a
bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are being
posted.  I'll also state that it is my turn to chair the telecon this week, and
this will also be a topic there.  Doing so will be neither unusual or
unexpected -- we have been doing this each and every week for years now.

> Rules that are changed based on bias, that single out individuals aren't rules
> -- they are barriers to participation.

First, the rules have not changed, they simply have been published[3].

Second, nobody has been singled out.  In my 1.75 years as co-chair, I can
attest to the fact that there are plenty of people who have been counseled on
their participation.  And, no, I have no intention of "outing" them.

And, finally, yes -- they are barriers to participation.  People who
consistently can not follow these simple rules are not welcome to participate
in this effort.  Period. 

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  If you have concerns with the W3C team rep, I suggest that you contact
either the Interaction Domain Leader or the Chief Operating Officer.  You can
find their contact information on the People section of the W3C web site[4]. 
Do NOT repeat these points again here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0136.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/People/all

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 17:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC