Further editorial edits to PR 237

I am disappointed in the decision in the last meeting[10] to override my 
concerns about PR 237[20].  I believe it was hasty, counterproductive 
and violated the spirit of the W3C consensus process.

I'd like to respectfully request that the group reopen PR 237 to permit 
further editorial changes to its content.  By W3C process, an issue that 
has been closed should not be reopened without new information.  And 
since, in our last meeting, I specifically requested the opportunity to 
propose new editorial changes to 237 prior to its closure, and that 
request was rejected, I cannot rightly propose those editorial changes 
now, unless I offer new information sufficient to reopen the issue.

The new information that I wish to provide is procedural.  In our last 
meeting[1], when it became apparent that the group did not have 
consensus to close 237, the issue was nonetheless closed, in spite of 
the fact that:

  - No binding group vote was taken to override the lack of consensus.

  - I offered to propose editorial changes that I thought would allow 
the group to reach consensus -- changes intended to address my editorial 
concerns while still retaining the essence of the content that the group 
wanted -- but the offer was not considered.

  - Two participants suggested that I should be permitted to propose 
further editorial edits to the wording of 237, but this suggestion was 
not adopted in the decision to close 237.

  - One other participant suggested postponing the decision, to give 
further opportunity to reach consensus, but this suggestion also was not 
adopted.

In short, I think the decision to close the issue in spite of the lack 
of consensus was hasty.  I think consensus could have been reached with 
minimal additional effort.  With that aim I respectfully request that 
237 be reopened to permit further editorial changes to it.

If the group agrees to the above, I would like to propose the following 
edits.

1. There is a lot of redundancy between these two bullets, which both 
talk about making assumptions about people's skills:

              <li>Intentionally or unintentionally making assumptions 
about the skills or knowledge of others, such as using language that 
implies the audience is uninformed on a topic (e.g. interjections like 
"I can't believe you don't know about [topic]").
              </li>

              <li>Assuming that particular groups of people are 
technically unskilled due to their characteristics (e.g., “So easy your 
grandmother could do it”, which implies an older woman might not be 
technically competent).
              </li>

I propose eliminating the redundancy and simplifying the wording to the 
following:

              <li>Implying that the audience is unusually uninformed 
(e.g. making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about 
[topic]").
              </li>

              <li>Implying that certain demographic groups are unskilled 
(e.g., “So easy your grandmother could do it”, which implies an older 
woman would not be technically competent).
              </li>

2. I propose acknowledging the source of the "patronizing" definition, 
and the fact that it was edited.  Plagiarism in a code of conduct would 
be embarrassing.

References:
10. https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html
20. https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237

Thanks,
David Booth

Received on Monday, 8 May 2023 04:36:26 UTC