Re: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?

On 20/03/2007 17:19, Chris Wilson wrote:

> Daniel,
> 	I am getting quite fed up with you sniping at me.  I apologize
> for the delay; due to all the revisions of the charter, the actual
> charter ("draft", but essentially the final charter) was delivered to me
> on 2/28 (that is, just under three weeks ago) - while I was heading out
> to start a round of travel.  I've been in my office for exactly three
> days in that last three weeks, and have had an entirely booked schedule
> during that time.

URGH !!!!!

First I am not sniping at anyone here. We were all asked to review the
group's final charter in a few days, we're already litteraly a hundred
here, and the group just cannot even decide if a ftf host proposal is
valid or not because one chair is not present. *You* are not in cause,
your parent company is, sorry if you don't get it.
And I discussed this with several other members of the group, and I
never said "Chris Wilson" but always "Microsoft". OBVIOUSLY, you're not
the one behind all the legal decisions of your company !!! You
perfectly know I have NOTHING against YOU personnally as co-chair. So I
find this attack rather unfair. This is W3C's decision and I respect it,
Otherwise, and if I had any doubt on your ability or fairness in that
role, I would NEVER have joined the Group AND YOU KNOW THAT. I am
not crazy enough to board a ship if I think it's going to sink.

Our message is not "evil empire go home", it's "hurry up please".
Am I the only one here to see a difference ?

  > Joining any W3C WG requires a process internal to Microsoft to review
> the intellectual property and legal ramifications of that participation.

Great. Microsoft should have told the group immediately.

> Under the W3C Patent Policy, I would hope any of you in sizable
> organizations have to do the same thing.  At any rate, I could not
> possibly have started said review until the WG had a final charter.  The
> ensuing three weeks has been a result of timing with my travel.  I am
> working on it now.  I expect it will take at least a week; it may take
> more, it depends on what IP conflicts legal turns up.

Great. Microsoft should have told the group immediately.

> You seem to have a personal problem with me being co-chair of this
> group.

Not a single problem, as said above.  And I cannot imagine you are
really believing what you wrote just above !!!

>  You've stated your objections, and the W3C chose (partly based
> on those, I imagine, though I have no actual knowledge) to have a
> co-chair (my esteemed colleague Dan).  Despite your continued claims, I
> was not "chosen" - I was asked, based on my history of involvement with
> the web and with HTML.  You appear to continue to have an issue.  You

No I don't, not a single one. But you're hard to convince, even if you
perfectly know I am never cheating or lying. Never, period.
I am reliable BECAUSE I am never cheating or lying ; and you guys in
Redmond know it, right ? So please, give me a break about this leitmotiv
on my so-called "sniping".

> claim  to represent others' opinions as well here.  I would like to
> suggest, in that case, that the current members of the WG ("invited
> experts" as well, as far as I'm concerned) take a vote to decide if they
> want me to be co-chair or not.

Again, but you seem to focus on that only, that is NOT the problem !
Just hurry up so we can start at least making important and urgent
decisions. For example : I spent a while looking for a FTF host here
in Paris ; found one ; notified the group by email. THESE FRIENDLY
our decision, our schedule, and other information. Is it too crazy to
ask how long they still have to wait for you ???? COME ON !!!

> I would be happy (as I've previously stated) to not have that
> responsibility, and I certainly have tremendous confidence and respect
> for Dan, and would support him as sole chair (I was delighted when he
> told me he was signing up to co-chair).  Your continued sniping is

Sniping... Geez. First, I made comments, comments and comments. W3C
Members *and* the public were left totally in the dark about the
creation process of this WG. It seems that saying it is beyond what you
think is acceptable. Then sorry, we don't have the same free speech
values, Chris, despite of all the respect I have for you ; of course,
I am working for myself, and that helps the discussions with my own
lawyer... You don't, and often in the past had to remain silent despite
of your thoughts. No offense, that's just factual, _you_ told me so

> As for FTF meeting - I've offered to host at Microsoft, but really don't
> care.

Great. Microsoft should have told the group immediately. Can you PLEASE
give us the URL of Microsoft's proposal to the Group, or would Microsoft
offer to host a meeting for the Group even if it cannot join due to the
patent policy ? Don't you see the paradox here ?

Chris, I feel insulted. You deliberately turned a discussion on the
Group's organization answering a major question with a personal flame.
This is the second time in ten years (we met IRL in 96 or 97 during
a ftf in Sophia-Antipolis) I am telling you _you_ are going beyond the
limits. The first time was when the CSS WG asked me to compare Netscape
Action Sheets and Microsoft HTC ; you quoted me as "partial" IIRC.
The whole group unanimously refused to follow you on that.
Later the whole group thanked me for my excellent study, shown during a
ftf meeting... in redmond.

This is my last post here on this too personal topic, my original
message was about the Group's organization and work, and I'll focus back
on that only. Again, we're all waiting for Microsoft. Microsoft, hurry
up please. EOM.


Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:24:17 UTC