Re: SVG's future

I received a private message more or less on the same tone that reads:


“You seem like a sad man with a lot of anger in your life, and little
respect for others.

Chill out. You're only making a fool of yourself.”



There would be no harm in addressing this kind of message publicly. Both
messages give opportunities for clarifications. However the first paragraph
relates to the tone and attitude used. After that, you may find what
follows instructive.



Acid comments about somebody’s private life, without any accusation on a
concrete action that may have had or may have detrimental consequences in a
wider scope, are typical of behind the screen valiant paladins rising in
defense of the establishment, without real mission and without being asked
or rewarded for.

Opposed to that, please note that Doug and I have already had in the past
very animated face to face discussions, that the issue is an old one, and
strictly related to SVG. Also note that in previous posts on this thread I
have also put in evidence some of Doug’s qualities as a man. What may be
defined as attacks, carry precisely over the way he has conducted his
mission at W3 in relation to SVG, and the consequences that derived from
that conduct, whether he was well aware or not of whose interests he was
serving primarily, and if those interests were in accordance with those of
the majority. The same does/may apply to Chris Lilley and others, but we
don’t know if they are really around or not, ready to take their
responsibilities, or if they care at all.


The non-acknowledgment, and the acceptance of the status quo deriving from
it, progressively diminish the chances of SVG 2 being implemented, until
the turmoil eventually fades out, closing the case.


Also take note that it’s quite common to have to resort to verbal or
written attacks to defend principles, where other methods reveal to have
failed, especially when dealing with public affairs, particularly those
that suffer from political schemes. Some undertake to defend principles,
and some don’t. Learn how to respect both. Learn how to not confuse
determination with foolishness. Learn how to express your ideas with
argumentations based on facts and people that you know, not based on
generic feelings about people that you don’t know.


Please also take note that some acquaintances and friends of mine are
questioning me, using an appropriate tone, about what the goal is and if
this is the best way to reach it.


I don’t know if this is the best way to reach it, but I do know that so far
soft manners and patience have not prevented the demolition of SVG from
happening. It actually came about unexpectedly for most. Talking of which,
I found a revelatory clue in Doug’s post that escaped my attention, where
he says first thing off:


“Suffice it to say that this post has little insight into the complexities
of the implementation landscape, nor the motivation of the implementers or
of W3C.”


The last sentence. OK, this, to me, proves that he’d been knowing all along
(I don’t really need a proof, but others may), who knows since when.
Therefore it proves the deceit towards the latest WG participants, who were
left to work hard until they started suspecting lately that their work was
already in a dead end, as well as those before them and all the bank of
past and present users and contributors.


Put in very simple words, this is called cheating, dishonesty.


I hear some say “Big deal, this is common, it’s how the world functions
anyway.” Some among the population are happy with it and some are not. The
ones cannot force the others to be happy or unhappy about it.


Please note that I haven’t questioned or offended anyone else other than
members of the W3 staff, and that so far I have only questioned the choices
of the implementers from an ethical standpoint, I haven’t offended them
yet, which may happen if the situation requires it and if the opportunity
arises, which I think is very unlikely.


The goal is to force: 1) the W3 to take its responsibilities by publicly
admitting it failed to fulfill its mission; 2) the implementation of SVG 2
as per agreements and understandings.


The second point is admittedly overly optimistic. But the first point would
probably lead to internal restructuring, which in turn may make point 2
possible.


If you guys have some other valid approach to propose, go ahead. I
explained at large the absurdity of the approach consisting in pulling
requests, test suites, polyfills, and such. Nobody has contradicted or
discussed in any way my assessment. Hopefully nobody believes in that
“remake” or “reload” approach, probably because everybody understands deep
down that if we were cheated once, under the same conditions we would be
exposed to be cheated again. After some people broke their asses on test
suites, a mammoth work I believe, how can anyone possibly expect there will
be new candidates when they see the appalling lack of consideration for the
work that was done? A new WG was not even appointed, and that, without even
an announcement.


Please learn how to draw the proper conclusions from events. To do the
three monkeys business is not a solution, especially when the monkey who
doesn’t speak, speaks up to say that the monkeys who see, hear, and speak,
are fools.


I hope this dissipates your perplexities. By the way, are you two perplex
at all, or did you just need to exist in some way? If you have perplexities
you can express them in the proper manner. Nobody has attacked you. If and
when Doug Schepers, Chris Lilley, or other members of theW3 wish to defend
themselves from the accusations they know how to do it, and they’re
welcome. Anyone else counter-attacking in self-appointed defense of the
establishment, is irrelevant and annoying, even if you were entire squads.
Your intervention is deprived of any argumentation related to SVG and its
future, as per the subject line . Simple pollution.




OT


For severe violations you need to look upstairs. A political attack is not
a severe violation because it’s not at all a violation, however virulent it
may be, and this in any context, from congresses, through associations, to
simple gatherings. There are no special rules for W3C mailing lists. This
is thanks to freedom of expression. Totalitarians and fascists normally try
to choke free expression. Choose your camp and let us know.


When I said the W3 was corrupt on this I had the right to think it and say
it, and I still have it unless they prove they were not. OK?

Domenico Strazzullo

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Domenico Strazzullo
> <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip quite a lot]
>
> This uninformed and insulting ranting is a severe violation of the
> community norms for a W3C mailing list.  Stop this now.
>
> ~TJ
>