Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Shelley Powers
>>>>> <shelleypowers@burningbird.net> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Now, those disclaimers were very well done. Notice the items 
>>>>>> marked **. The
>>>>>> survey editors specifically warned against using the results to 
>>>>>> form a
>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>> No they did not.  They said that "care should be taken" in
>>>>> interpreting the results.
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>> Actually, I would say that means a person should use caution before 
>>>> forming a conclusion, and making the attribute obsolete. But we can 
>>>> disagree on what it means.
>>>>
>>>>> Note as well, of course, that this disclaimer applies to a study that
>>>>> was not done by Ian, and which provides the totals for each answer
>>>>> inline in the study (I'm not sure if the actual raw data is
>>>>> available).
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the relevant part of the survey (the question concerning
>>>>> preferred treatment of a complex image) was very clear - the current
>>>>> longdesc behavior was *extremely* unpopular compared to the other
>>>>> proposed methods (all of which used existing technologies).  The only
>>>>> less popular treatment of the image was ignoring it altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>> Again, though, there could be other factors. I'm not necessarily 
>>>> defending longdesc, I leave that to the accessibility folks. The 
>>>> point on my original email was to question the soundness of the 
>>>> studies that Ian's using as his primary proof for the 
>>>> counter-proposal.
>>>>>> I have a degree in Psychology (industrial emphasis), in addition 
>>>>>> to a degree
>>>>>> in computer science, and most of my time spent within the 
>>>>>> discipline was
>>>>>> focused on testing, research, and how to conduct these types of 
>>>>>> studies. I'm
>>>>>> not an expert, I only have a BA not an advanced degree, but the 
>>>>>> points I
>>>>>> made are a fundamental, and not something I'm making up.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>> If your expertise is relevant, then you can articulate your problems
>>>>> with the studies used more precisely, as Maciej requested.
>>>>> Vaguely-stated but impressive-sounding objections are not just
>>>>> useless, but *actively harmful* to the discussion (see "Gish 
>>>>> Gallop").
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I was precise. Did you need some kind of number to make 
>>>> it seem more precise? Do I need to say, "I'm 99.453% sure that  Ian 
>>>> has not provided access to the raw Google index data"? Or something 
>>>> like that? Your comment is confusing.
>>>>
>>>> As for the statement about my objection being harmful to the 
>>>> discussion, and casting a negative connotation about my concerns 
>>>> ("Gish Gallop") is a very personal, and negative, statement to make 
>>>> about my objection, Tab. Could you please justify how my objection 
>>>> is "actively harmful"?
>>>>
>>>> Is "harmful" in this context, the same use of "harmful" that has 
>>>> been used about longdesc and @summary? I'm trying to figure it out, 
>>>> because I can't see how my objections are harmful, at least not 
>>>> with my understanding of the word.
>>>
>>> How about the two of you figure this out off-list, and then report 
>>> back?
>>>
>>> I'd like to keep public-html for technical discussions.
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>
>> Sam,
>>
>> I will be glad to have these discussions off list. Or frankly, not 
>> have these discussions at all. My initial email response to Ian was 
>> valid, and on topic. The WhatWG tag team response, less so. I have no 
>> problems with people questioning the statements I made, but the 
>> pushback was focused on my intentions, rather than on my statements.
>>
>> I am concerned though that too often the co-chairs are undermining my 
>> integrity, authority, and usefulness, by following a pattern of 
>> allowing several emails accusing me of negative behavior, personal 
>> attacks, or in this case, causing harm to the discussion, and then, 
>> when I defend myself, then, and only then, do the co-chairs, such as 
>> yourself, step in to shut the discussion down.
>
> There is a substantial difference between "shut down" and "not here".
>
> The number of posts on a Valentines day Sunday is remarkably high:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/index.html


Yes, I should not respond when I receive a direct comment in the list. 
After all, better seen than heard...

>
> My focus on the publishing discussion is to get people to report bugs, 
> and to make use of the facilities we already have:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0411.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0421.html
>
> Discussions around bugs 8818 and 8252 are largely technical 
> discussions about the bugs themselves.
>
> In my opinion, the issue 30 discussion was not focused on either 
> updating the existing change proposals or the creation of a new change 
> proposal.
>
>> I no longer know how to participate in the group. I cannot 
>> participate in the group if the co-chairs continue in their uneven 
>> stewardship of the group.
>
> So, for now, I would like to reserve public-html for discussions of 
> the form of "hey Charles (or Ian): can you update your change proposal 
> to include 'x'" or "hey Chairs: I'm not happy with either change 
> proposal, and I would like to produce a third one, can I have n days 
> in order to prepare it?"

This is counter to your Decision process, which includes a time of 
discussion about the proposals. And I don't remember that the discussion 
had to take this specific format.

Are you co-chairs changing the Decision process? Again?

This is fine, if you apply the same practices for ALL discussions, and 
for all participants.

>
> Other discussions can (and should) proceed.  Just elsewhere, with 
> results brought back to the larger group.

This is not how other discussions have gone. But how things are handled 
does seem to change, depending on the players.

>
> - Sam Ruby
>

Shelley

Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 21:20:35 UTC