W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Is the TAG structure harmful? [Was: Fwd: Forced Resignation]

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 01:13:02 -0600
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20140702011302.0edc6de8be1d16cf4400005e@bisonsystems.net>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The only e-mail to you that I find in my Sent Mail even remotely
> along these lines is:
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/021DF08B-395A-4CCA-9F3F-DA7E8437955B@mnot.net>
> Were you referring to that, or something else?

Something else. You've only given out two "official" warnings in recent
years; one of them was addressed at me, and I'm still unhappy about it
because I felt I was *objecting* to disruptive behavior from the
corporate lobby suggesting that the *entire RFC process* was borked.
Maybe go back and look into that? Coupla years ago at least. Julian has
some off-list e-mails I'd be happy if he shared with you.

It's what I mean when I say that non-corporate-types are marginalized
on ietf-http-wg, which has led to further warnings like the link you
referenced -- continuation of a pattern favoring corporate takeover,
leading to my continued disinterest. It just doesn't matter to me, as I
believe architecture will out in the long term, and I've never had a
problem with saying "told ya so" which I believe will be the case with
HTTP/2 adoption as well.

> > But, I must strenuously disagree -- the last thing I trust
> > is that contributors here will put the interests of the Web ahead
> > of the interests of those cutting their paychecks.
> I find that a bit sad, but OK...

I find it sad, too. But that doesn't mean I fail to recognize reality.

> > Otherwise, architectural concerns wouldn't be scoffed at as they
> > are. But, as you've made quite clear to me, bringing up these
> > concerns will get me banned as they're political, not technical, in
> > nature. But I think that's what HTTP/2 is all about, so I'd best
> > shut the **** up about it.
> OK. I'm not sure what's causing the vitriol here, but I apologise if
> I've contributed to it. I don't believe I ever said you'd be banned
> for contributing; I'm only try to maintain a professional environment
> that focuses on data and outcomes, not ad hominems (which dismissing
> someone's viewpoint because it's "corporate" is).

Well, the corporate folks objection to my postion constituted, in my
opinion, ad-hominems against my architectural arguments, which is why
your warning continues to rankle as I was only defending my position,
political as it may have seemed -- but again, that's the reality of
HTTP/2 development as I see it, the winning arguments have more to do
with corporate bottom-line interests than they do architecture; where
else should I discuss that issue? Down the block from the abortion
clinic? ;-)

Let's just say that your definition of "ad hominem" and mine, differ.
I feel I raise legitimate concerns, or I wouldn't post them, regardless
of whether they're political or technical in nature. My challenge
remains, give me a technical basis for some of the decisions made?

You say I should not mention the political reasons, but again, when the
decisions run contrary to what's best for Web architecture for no valid
technical reason, what recourse do I have but to call them out for being
political in nature, whether you like it or not?

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 07:13:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:02 UTC