Re: April face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:11:05 +0100, Andres Riofrio <ariofrio@cs.ucsb.edu>  
wrote:

> Or the other way around. In any case, I was only making a point against
> systematic avoidance of major religious holidays, in favor of a more
> case-by-case basis.

As ne of the chairs who was involved in scheduling... I try to avoid major  
holidays that I know will cause problems for many people. And events which  
will do the same - a lot of the group might go to Google I/O or SxSW, or  
somehow think the world knows or cares when thanksgiving is and why we  
should avoid holding meetings then.

In the end, there will always be someone who can't make a meeting - this  
is one of their inherent drawbacks. Thinking about how to make sure it  
isn't always the *same* someone is important. (And Josh has a fair point,  
there *are* jewish people involved here who take their religion seriously  
enough that it causes them a problem). I made an assumption about when  
passover is that was incorrect, instead of checking, which contributed to  
the problem.

I don't actually believe that your religious holiday/kids' special  
event/wife's anniversary/much-anticipated holiday is less important than  
the future of the web. But nor do I know of any individual alive whose  
presence is critical to the success of a webapps / HTML meeting. There are  
many people who will, should they be able to, contribute greatly to that  
success, and if we can't get enough people to the meeting we won't run it.

The current W3C process allows people to object to other people having  
formal meetings (which strikes me as very asymmetrical - you can't object  
to a self-selected bunch of people meeting without inviting anyone else)  
without sufficient notice. It also (quite reasonably) allows people to  
point out that we have what amounts to a systemic bias in the way we  
organise them (more than one - we have a very conscious bias towards  
helping out Bay Area residents at the cost of everyone else :( ), which is  
what happened here.

If you're likely to attend, please say so. If you're unlikely to attend  
wherever and whenever the meeting is, you don't need to say anything. If  
you would attend under different circumstances, feel free to say what they  
are...

For the record: I prefer to hold meetings in Europe (in the large,  
including Russia, North Africa, ...) as it is easier to have Opera people  
present at them. But we will make the effort to contribute when- and  
wherever the meeting may be.

cheers

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Andres Riofrio wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding the checklist: perhaps these things are only relevant if  
>> there
>> are Christian/Jewish/Muslim people in the group. And if there are people
>> that prefer not to meet on Saturday. It seems to me more reasonable to
>> expect people with prior commitments, that plan to attend, to speak up,  
>> and
>> expect the rest to understand and try to come to a consensus. That's why
>> people ask for objections anyway.
>>
>> Right, sometimes one might have to make sacrifices and forgo a Saturday  
>> or
>> observing some religious thingy out of respect for the sectarian nature  
>> of
>> the W3C membership (and for the advancement of our beloved and sacred  
>> Web).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcos
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 11:09:11 UTC