- From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:50:01 -0700
- To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>, <www-html@w3.org>
(cc list trimmed somewhat as I'm sure TBL, Steve and Judy have other things to worry about...) Quoting Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>: > > It's important to keep in mind that when people disagree, there are > often different perceptions on different sides of the argument, > especially in media like email and IRC that don't convey emotional > cues very well. What you see as process abuse, others may see as > vigorous discussion that ultimately leads to a better spec. Similarly, > sometimes individuals may perceive a conversation as a series of > unwarranted personal attacks on them, where others may see that > individuals remarks as trolling or needlessly disruptive. Maciej, I agree that often the emotional and visual cues of the written word are lacking, however, please do refer to Tina's earlier response [http://tinyurl.com/293sry]: there can be no mistaking the intent of the comments made about her - there is no ambiguity in those written words. Some might think they are the extreme, or taken out of context, but if you care to follow the full thread of this conversation, there are others who have felt the same "chilling effect" [Sam Ruby @ IBM -http://tinyurl.com/28ae6u]: the superior tone and argumentative attitude that brow-beats dissenters on list, and as witnessed by Tina's archived comments, ridicules them off list. Believe me, I know my name has appeared on the IRC logs more than once, and I know for sure that they weren't saying I was a swell guy... That's OK, I have broad shoulders and thick skin; I believe in what I fight for, and will fight for what I believe in. You also commented: > (Personally, I'm not even sure who is involved, besides John; I > don't know who exactly he thought was rude.) I thought that the IRC logs in question were offensive (not rude); the tone of the conversation was dismissive of legal provisions afforded the disabled ("they have no carrots"), the reference to "Smell-o-vision" and how the accessibility community would want special provisions there too, and the re-enforcement overall that our community and our concerns are generally dismissed in private, despite "the official position". I have already admitted that *I* was initially rude in my response, to which I have apologized. There has been sufficient response from other parties surrounding this issue that if you do not understand by now why collectively the accessibility advocates are upset, then it points to an even bigger problem. Please tell me that this is not the case. > > The first recourse in a dispute, ideally, should be for the parties to > talk directly to each other. Especially if the event that upset you > happened in a non-interactive medium or at a time when you were not > present. I hope we all consider this option before kicking problems > upstairs. My personal feeling, and based on many of the private responses I have received supporting my outburst, is that it was time to "kick this upstairs". Enough is enough... these two communities have been going at it in a similar fashion since May, and the vitriol and division has been well documented to date both within and outside of the W3C. Please do not make me research all of the archives simply to prove what is generally well known. I can and will, but let's not. Let's agree that to date, the exchanges very often have been less than cordial, and that from *our* (or at the very least, my) perspective certain members of the Working Group have not always displayed an appropriate sensitivity that comes with the responsibility they have undertaken. Some see nothing wrong with the comments in the IRC log - others did, and have commented so publicly. I chose to make it a bigger issue because I personally have had enough. When I first read those comments I was angered beyond belief at the insensitivity of their tone. Some might think I over-reacted: so be it - the comments however did strike a chord with others, so it simply wasn't me - I just made the most noise. > > Let's try these kinds of approaches before we even bring up the idea > of a process for kicking people out. The responsibility for making > this group effective lies with all of us. And here we have agreement. I have said my piece, made my apology, and I have little more to add; the real business of getting back to improving the accessibility of the web must continue. Let's all move on. JF
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 00:50:26 UTC