W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

Keeping the tone nice Re: w3process-ISSUE-124

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:26:59 +0200
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2461412332019@webcorp02f.yandex-team.ru>
CG chair hat on.

02.10.2014, 23:30, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
> On 10/2/14 5:14 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>> By misrepresenting me here, that the WhatWG group had been explicitly blacklisted by me, you did me and the whole group a massive disservice. You owe me personally and I think the group an apology. You wasted a lot of everyone's time in putting fuel for the the resulting flame wars.

I think this is true. I would appreciate it if people tried to be less inflammatory in the way they frame questions, and perhaps more careful about how they represent others.

> As I said in followups to this thread, my take away from the meeting
> meeting that led to this issue is that one could interpret the NRP as
> not permitting normative WHATWG references in PRs (which again, I think
> would be a mistake). I do agree that rather having said "the Director
> will NOT" it would have been more accurate to say "it appears the
> Director will NOT" so I apologize for that bug. Again, it is unfortunate
> the meeting wasn't held in a transparent way and that "minutes" from the
> meeting aren't sufficient to back either position.

When a meeting is held in confidence, you should be extra-careful about breaking that confidence. This is a reasonable demand of the process (feel free to raise an issue against the relevant sections if you think we should work differently).

It is one thing to raise an issue on your own behalf. It is another to report what people said to you in confidence, without checking with the people concerned.

> We do indeed need to do better.
> I disagree with the characterization the discussion being a waste of
> time. I think it was actually quite useful.

There was a useful and important discussion about the specific case, which was always going to happen in order to get HTML published. There was also something of a useful discussion about the general principle, which is an ongoing question (and for which there was already the perfectly reasonable ISSUE-71 [71] open.

[71] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71



Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 10:27:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:21 UTC