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

Re: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:07:47 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, w3c-archive@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Krzysztof MaczyƄski <1981km@gmail.com>
Message-id: <8EBB6011-A1B3-4D06-AAC6-B652C14F2890@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Hi John,

Your participation on this thread is generating more heat than light. Here are some things that I do not see as helpful towards building consensus:

- Taking a process discussion that had been moved off-list and putting it back on the list.
- Resorting to personal insults ("jerks", "bloody-minded").
- Doubling down on personal insults when asked to tone it down.
- Repeating the same points over and over.

These are not appropriate behaviors for public-html. You can do that all you want on your own blog, twitter, irc, www-archive or anywhere else, but not on this list. Meanwhile, other people (including Matt and Lachlan) are trying to focus on concrete next steps that will improve the spec, and the noise is drowning out that work. Furthermore, whatever valid concerns you have are not getting heard because of your tone. 

Based on this I'd like to ask you to take some time out from posting on this thread. If after a day or two you have some important points to add that help us refine the spec or come to close agreement, then you are encouraged to do so. 


On Feb 6, 2010, at 1:08 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Sigh.  I'm a contradictory jerk?  Really?
>> Dude, I didn't contradict myself.
> Really? Then why didn't you actually correct the impression that Aryeh 
> suggested by saying it was in fact not 100% accurate? Why didn't you say 
> that the thread was favoring removal of the text and point to UUAG, a 
> position you found acceptable?  Instead you essentially agreed with his 
> dismissive and insulting characterization - thus prompting Ian to make the 
> unacceptable change he did. Comments about suffering in hell for eternity 
> and having God follow specs *is* being a jerk, especially in a forum where 
> others can read/hear those comments. If you were on a public transit bus and 
> somebody started talking very loudly using similar types of commentary, you 
> too would likely think the person(s) to be jerks.
>> I think that removing the specific
>> technology reference and pointing to UUAG is acceptable (not
>> necessarily required, but acceptable).  Aryeh's summary doesn't say
>> anything against that.
> No, it doesn't say anything really. It simply makes fun of alternative 
> points of view without actually adding anything constructive to the 
> discussion. Yet at the same time it appears to be the basis of the change 
> made by Hixie.
>> And I really think that *was* an accurate summary.
> Perhaps of 'perceptions', but not of next-steps moving forward - which I've 
> documented earlier - showing that the majority were in agreement of removing 
> the text and pointing to UAAG. Unless you can provide evidence to the 
> contrary...
>> It's what I got
>> out of the discussion, at least, and I read every message that comes
>> through this list.
> As do I on topics concerning accessibility - you can slug it out all you 
> want on draft-abarth-mime-sniff and RDFa/Microformats and what-have-you. I 
> have no horse in those races, and refrain from commenting.
> The larger issue however remains - Ian asked two people in IRC for their 
> opinion(s)/recollections and made a change based solely on that.
>> So, seriously, tone down the rhetoric and insults.  It's not helpful.
> Nothing I have said is rhetorical - I have stated facts as I and what I 
> believe others see them.
> If you are offended by my characterization of that particular IRC discussion 
> thread, by stating that the participants were being jerks, then perhaps you 
> and Aryeh should think twice before tossing off comments like that. Whether 
> or not you are actually a jerk (and I really have no reason to believe you 
> are) is less the issue than the impression you left. If you cannot see how 
> those comments could be construed as offensive and belittling to others who 
> have entered this discussion with pure heart and higher motives, then you 
> are (IMHO) missing an important part of the larger discussion. It's about 
> respect, and to expect it you must also give it.
> JF
Received on Sunday, 7 February 2010 01:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:10 UTC