Re: Formal Recorded Complaint


Of course I know I'll be flamed for saying 1+ without justifying
a use-case, and will be roundly abused for saying 1+ 
because it "apparently adds nothing" according to some  on this list.

But like Sam, I count myself along those who dont contribute to
this WG for  reasons similar to what Sam articulates   in his message.
And in the fine tradition of Apache and other related lists, I
assert that 1+ adds value -- otherwise I'd write 1-;-)
Sam Ruby writes:
 > Dan Connolly wrote:
 > > On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:21 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
 > >> Dan Connolly wrote:
 > >>> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:30 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
 > >>>> Mr. Bratt, Mr. Berners-Lee, Ms. Brewer, Mr. Connolly,
 > >>>>
 > >>>> I am writing today regarding an issue that both shocks and profoundly
 > >>>> disappoints me.  While I understand that to a large extent there is little
 > >>>> that can be done at this point, I personally feel that the issue I am
 > >>>> referring to should be brought directly to your attention, as it indirectly
 > >>>> affects the reputation and public position of the W3C.
 > >>> [...]
 > >>>
 > >>> John, your complaint is acknowledged.
 > >>>
 > >>> Yes, accessibility is essential part of our charter...
 > >>>
 > >>> ... but figuring out how to achieve it is hard work.
 > >>>
 > >>> Organizing the W3C HTML WG as primarily a large mailing list is
 > >>> somewhat risky; typically, W3C Working Groups establish mutual
 > >>> trust and respect in face-to-face meetings and teleconferences
 > >>> which results in more sensitivity than we are seeing in
 > >>> the HTML WG mailing list and nearby forums such as IRC.
 > >>> (The particular discussion you cite is in a WHATWG forum,
 > >>> not a W3C forum, but I think that matters only a little.)
 > >> Other standards organizations cope, and do so by having policies for 
 > >> dealing with situations such as these.  For example:
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> I submit that if the W3C is not willing to establish and enforce similar 
 > >> policies that this noble experiment is openness may not produce the 
 > >> results you seek.
 > > 
 > > W3C has established and is willing to enforce similar policies.
 > > 
 > > See, for example, section 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria
 > > in the W3C process document.
 > >
 > > 
 > > Many of the people in this WG are here on an invited basis. I'd rather
 > > not revoke those invitations without some due process. And I'd rather
 > > not have to establish a process for revoking them. But if it comes
 > > to that, that's my job (along with my co-chair, Chris Wilson, and
 > > the W3C Team Contact, Karl Dubost).
 > The first thing I would like to point out is that I've seen nobody 
 > questioning the competence of anybody who has participated this working 
 > group.  Nor are we talking about classing 'troll' behavior here.  We are 
 > talking about people who have value to contribute, but seem entirely 
 > unable to disagree without being disagreeable.  Putting forward a 
 > counter argument isn't sufficient for such people, they seem compelled 
 > to do so in a manner that shames the person who advanced the other point 
 > of view into silence.
 > A somewhat related story.  I've made very few, modest, contributions to 
 > this working group.  One was the suggestion that trailing soliduses be 
 > allowed in a few circumstances.  At first, I was told that that was 
 > entirely impossible without breaking the web, and I was told that by 
 > none other than Ian Hickson, with whom I have no quarrel.  But I 
 > persisted, and put forward a very surgical proposal.  My motivations 
 > were simple: to eliminate a large number of meaningless conformance 
 > checking errors of no consequence from being reported.  This proposal 
 > was quickly adopted and I've noted with pleasure that it has been cited 
 > positively a number of times.
 > What surprised me, however, is the vitriol of the debate.  I felt I was 
 > deified and painted as a religious zealot.  It had a chilling effect on 
 > my participation.  What effect did it have on me?  Well, I have an 
 > equally surgical proposal that I would like to discuss at some point 
 > regarding namespaces.  But I've held back in the hopes that at some 
 > point I would have enough emotional bandwidth to sustain the predictable 
 > assault.
 > Back to the point at hand: how you deal with this formal complaint will 
 > set the tone for future interactions with this mailing list.  If this 
 > goes without further action, this working group is implicitly telling 
 > the people who took offense to "grow a pair" (and, yes, I've 
 > intentionally chosen a vulgar and inappropriate metaphor).
 > - Sam Ruby

Best Regards,

Title:  Research Scientist      
Google: tv+raman 

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 22:49:43 UTC