Re: SVG's future

I have known Domenico, by his communications within the SVG community, for
more than 10 years. He surely has not been self serving, but focused on the
success of SVG. His rhetoric is amazing, and I enjoy it much :)

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Domenico Strazzullo <
strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>