Re: [proposals] Why would notice and consent not be adequate? (Notice and consent debate) (#5)

@BasileLeparmentier I appreciate your message, but how long should civility be extended to someone who will then use it for nothing other than repeating debunked claims, casting insulting and unfounded aspersions ("_I fear we do not agree that the widest number of entities should be able to participate and innovate_"), sealioning, renaming the issue to reframe it after the fact, etc.?

If this were an entirely new situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with you Basile. But James's behaviour here fits a pattern that we've seen over and over again. Going back in time, when James loudly demanded that the TAG's security questionnaire be changed, many of us tried to engage on open-minded terms. But over time it surfaced not only that James continuously ignored every argument that was inconvenient to him but in fact had not even made the most cursory attempt at understanding the Web's security model and threats. He eventually managed to anger the chairs, both of whom are some of the kindest and most patient people in the community, and was banned from participation. Frankly, that takes _a lot_.

I have a _huge_ amount of sympathy for the fact that the Web is a complex beast and that approaching standards is hard. Like many others, over the years I've worked to ensure that the community is more inclusive, more open, and that participating is easier. Anyone who needs support navigating this work can come to me (and to many others — I'm not special in that) and people do. But this requires at least two things: 1) the willingness the listen (even if it's to disagree) and 2) a commitment to engaging with prior art and doing one's homework. James has shown repeatedly that he is interested in neither.

People make mistakes, people learn, people grow. If James does _sincerely_ want to adjust his behaviour, then the door is of course open. One basic adjustments would be accepting the fact that if consent had been shown to work, we'd use it. SMC is fun, but there is no self-respecting technologist who would consider using it in production if they could just use a prompt instead. That's just basic respect for the fact that others aren't dumb and are acting in good faith. In order to reject that elementary starting point, James has to come up with insulting conspiracy theories like "_I fear we do not agree that the widest number of entities should be able to participate and innovate_".

I wasn't joking when I said that solving consent would be a revolution in Web tech. The link I pointed to in my previous post here is to a group I chartered and chaired that had permissions management — of which consent is a part — as a key component of its scope. Many things were tried in that group, before that group, after that group; all have failed. It's solved for a few specific cases (eg. button-based pickers) but that's it. Maybe it would be respectful to engage with prior art at least some before claiming one has the solution figured out?

At any rate, as Alex says respect and civility are two-way streets. I have much better things to do with my time than to have to push back against disrespectful behaviour and I would be delighted not to have to do this.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by darobin
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/5#issuecomment-1055707843 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2022 17:59:37 UTC