Re: Reminder: communicate constructively - Re: Newsletter & Call for Papers WebSci'18

Dan:


I fear that your message is an example of false equivalence.  There is an
initial error here, and maybe a retaliation error, but in my view the initial
error is at the very least far worse.


peter



On 02/22/2018 07:47 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> Technically the Semantic Web Interest Group is out of charter and this list
> is not governed by W3C Process (its members never clicked through any
> agreements), but yes - Harry, no need for personal attacks here, rules or no
> rules. I can also sympathize with those who have been on the receiving end
> of Sarven's tireless advocacy. This has been a tension point around Semantic
> Web more or less since academia noticed RDF in 2001 or so, which was also
> roughly when 'Semantic Web' was claimed as a slogan by communities for whom
> the 'Web' part was largely an after-thought rather than foundational. Many
> working in academia feel very constrained by processes and workflows beyond
> their control, and publicly shaming those who are entangled with PDFs (and
> closed publishing) may not be the most constructive way to move things
> along. Discussions here work best when we can avoid us-and-them-ism and
> focus on common ground and interests. Phrased differently, and less
> aggressively/personally, Harry's point about mathematical markup could have
> been a foundation for collaboration rather than fight-winning (as could some
> of Sarven's critiques too). 
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 22 Feb 2018 06:20, "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org
> <mailto:coralie@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Harry, all,
>
>     On this matter as well as all others we are debating passionately, it's
>     important to uphold the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [1] that
>     is in effect. It calls for civil discussion, for communicating
>     constructively, offering objective work criticism, etc. This is the
>     standard of conversation we expect and are serious about.
>
>     Section 3.1 “Individual Participation Criteria” of the W3C Process
>     Document [2] reminds that
>     {{
>     Participants in any W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of
>     the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct […]
>     }}
>
>     Thank you,
>     Coralie Mercier, Head of W3C Marketing & Communications
>
>     [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/>
>     [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#ParticipationCriteria
>     <https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#ParticipationCriteria>
>
>
>     On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:57:05 +0000, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org
>     <mailto:hhalpin@ibiblio.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > As I have pointed out many times, […]
>     > So I basically consider it a solvable problem
>     > that requires real work, but until I see real work I consider Sarven’s
>     > posts to basically be pointless spam and borderline trolling.
>     >
>     > Since I have no desire to see spam in my inbox, I will unsubscribe from
>     > this mailing list quite shortly likely.
>
>     --
>     Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Marketing & Communications -  https://www.w3.org
>     mailto:coralie@w3.org <mailto:coralie@w3.org> +337 810 795 22
>     <tel:%2B337%20810%20795%2022> https://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
>     <https://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 22 February 2018 16:27:18 UTC