W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:33:36 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org
message-id: <552E0640.20708@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 14/04/15 17:04, David Singer wrote:

> Your debating tone and technique leave quite a bit to be desired, and it’s beginning to get to me. Could you please try to avoid characterizing positions you disagree with as “pointless and conservative”, especially when points have, in fact, been made, that you have not even tried to refute?

David, three things:

First, I am naming a cat a cat. Many saw the last episode about Alex as
ridiculous and a scandal, that's factual. If you want me to use more
politically correct vocabulary, it won't change the fact and the word
"scandal" is not inappropriate, it's precisely my opinion and it was
shared by many.

Second, I have the feeling the current proposal is over-conservative
for false "safety" reasons and I find it therefore pointless or at
least a weak - too weak - compromise that does not solve the original
issue. I don't think "conservative" and "pointless" are offending
or vulgar. You made your points, and I very strongly disagree with them.
If I can't say why (conservative, pointless, complicated, ambiguous),
there is no debate.

Third, you said you want to "move on" and have agreed with Chaals
on it, just as if you spent too much time on this while there is
still input - from me, bkardell and oh wait a co-chair of the TAG - on
this issue. This is another debating technique there is a lot to say
about. Even when a specification seems to have stabilized, we're able
to relaunch the debate when important points are made. Why is it
different here?

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 06:34:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 April 2015 06:34:14 UTC