RE: Further editorial edits to PR 237

Hi David,

Thank you for your note. We spent 3 meetings discussing PR 237/238, so I don't feel that this was hasty. I would like to avoid getting into different interpretations of the Process.

Please open a new issue with your suggested rewording, and we will address it at our next meeting (May 23).

Thank you,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Principal
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:36 AM
To: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>
Cc: public-pwe@w3.org
Subject: Further editorial edits to PR 237

⛔       This is an external email.


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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!v9VGEydnnDOWVrrpUQzycQLW5u_9lv44ydjuJuF1Jvh8lrWINUyfKI2GMnGs34DCmPREWQghfL3O$

20. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!v9VGEydnnDOWVrrpUQzycQLW5u_9lv44ydjuJuF1Jvh8lrWINUyfKI2GMnGs34DCmPREWSBQJVNN$


Thanks,
David Booth
________________________________
 The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, review, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete all copies of the email and any attachments.
Click here for translations of this disclaimer.<https://secure.wiley.com/email-disclaimers>
________________________________

Received on Monday, 8 May 2023 18:13:22 UTC