- From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:29:56 -0700
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > Before asking 450+ people to take time away from the business > of this working group, which is a technical design for HTML 5, > we ask that you consult us first. > For the record... I think that if Anne (or any of the other WG members) chooses to publicly speak about features that are being "added" or "dropped" to HTML5, when clearly the chairs are saying that *nothing* has been decided, then they must reap what they sow: perhaps Anne should have consulted with the chairs before posting his blog. I personally believe that with the position of active WG member (especially at the level that Anne is working at) comes the responsibility to accurately reflect the goings-on within the Working Group, clearly not evident in Anne's blog post. Chris and Dan, currently there is a serious PR problem within the Working Group, manifesting itself as "rudeness". In reality, what is happening is that certain WG members are advocating and advancing their *OPINIONS* as manifest decisions, using any number of methods (including personal blogs, mozilla bug reports, etc. [http://blog.whatwg.org/omit-alt]) in a "...If we say it long enough and loud enough, it will be..." kind of scenario (as if the existing cowpaths aren't enough, they're trampling out new ones fast and furious, in anticipation of the paving machine). Since some of these self-appointed spokespeople are recognized as being seriously linked to and involved with the HTML5 draft, the perception (real or otherwise) is that they are making "announcements" or "proclamations" on behalf of the HTML5 WG, resulting in others lashing back out, as A) clearly (to us) they are opinions, and B) we neither share nor endorse these opinions. In many instances, we fundamentally disagree (for example, making the alt attribute "optional", or the removal of LONGDESC because Ian Hickson can only find "...about 0.6% of <img> elements with a longdesc=""..."). With this kind of aggressive opinionating, is it any wonder that others become frustrated, and ultimately rude? As co-chairs, I'll suggest that if you really want a productive working environment (as opposed to a sniping ground) that the *opinions* of the core working group be reigned in. This is not about removing the ability to speak freely, or offer an opinion, but rather that the fact that they *ARE* opinions be clearly articulated; a 'disclaimer' that is currently seriously lacking. Without this, there will remain the continued perception of "us and them", and the ongoing Hatfields and McCoys [http://tinyurl.com/25gehw] environment we are all currently living through. JF
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 22:30:06 UTC