W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2008

Re: discretion in adding issues [was: respecification of document.write...]

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:38:51 +0200
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1FBA92E-73AC-4270-ABE3-E99D7844C292@robburns.com>
Cc: Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org

HI Mike,

Your recent flurry of messages on the issue tracker are way out of  
line[1][2][3]. It is inappropriate for you to address other WG members  
in this manner and I don't want to see it again (to anyone). The low  
level of decorum that you and others on the WG feel they can maintain  
is disgraceful. Calling the results of my time spent volunteering for  
this WG, researching issues, discussing and understanding the views of  
other WG members and distilling that into actionable items is  
definitely belittling and insulting. Don't imagine for an instant that  
it is not.

Also, defending others’ comments that I created a mess is still  
inappropriate no matter what ways you find to justify in your mind.  
These are all legitimate issue which I raised in good faith and have  
volunteered my own time to address. Closing them prematurely would be  
inappropriate as well.

In your defense, would you care to point to a document somewhere  
(including statements of the co-chairs) that clearly states a policy  
or policies, regarding the issue tracker, that I (or Gregory)  
violated? Please point to the working criteria for raising issues in  
the issue-tracker that these issues do not meet.

As for my comments about Andrew, I have numerous times cordially  
requested Andrew clarify his remarks when they have seemed hostile.  
Typically Andrew simply withdraws from the conversation rather than  
providing elaboration on his meaning. This has been a pattern and I  
would not use the term 'hostile' lightly. To take the focus off of  
Andrew directly, there has been a pattern of knee-jerk responses where  
some WG members respond with a repertoire of canned answers. The  
recent response I cited was simply the most clear case of it having  
nothing to do with the conversation. I'm not calling for any action  
regarding such WG disruptions, but I will not hesitate to call them  
out when they occur (especially so blatantly as calling a zero  
implementation proposal too much "implementation complexity").

Keep in mind most of these issues were in the issue tracker in some  
form when we were using the wiki. They simply failed to get moved to  
the new issue tracker when that was setup.

Take care,

[1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0000.html 
[2]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0001.html 
[3]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0002.html 
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 10:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:30 UTC