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

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 14:08 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> On 15/04/15 10:14, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> You characterize here the reasons as “false” without, again, actually addressing them. Yet again you are characterizing positions rather than debating them, trying to establish that they are “false” by repeated assertion rather than debate.
> 
> And how would I do that? You support the current proposal because you're
> under the impression it's a counter-measure against some potential
> abuse. I'm saying such abuse won't happen. You can't prove there will
> be abuse (and abuse of that kind has been rare if not inexistent in W3C
> history) and I can't prove you don't need it because it's only an
> assumption about a potential future situation.
> So yes, the only thing I can do is give my opinion, and say I think we
> just don't need such counter-measures.

I gave you at least two concrete reasons why it might be undesirable, in a very recent email.

It seems you are willing to assert, though you have not troubled to do so:
1. there are no companies/employers who will direct their employees to argue a certain way or position, even if the employee has doubts;
2. employees working in a company are able to resist the usual human tendency to agree with their peers.

As I said, I and many others have had actual experience of counter-examples to (1), and there is plenty of research indicating how strong (2) is and how difficult to resist.

There are other reasons that people have put forward, earlier in the discussion, and you have not addressed them either.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.