W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@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 06:10:32 -0600
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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: <20140702061032.7c96f939445fb542f1fa34d9@bisonsystems.net>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > [...] I only occasionally contribute "political" opinions.
> > Just to get them on the record.
> If you don't submit facts, how is this helping? The people that
> disagree with you will find you rightfully "marginalized" as you are
> not contributing anything of discernible value and you are wasting
> time you could have spent with the dog.

Because the facts have already been brought up by others. I don't often
just hand out the mindless "+1", preferring to point out in detail when
the perfectly-valid concerns of others are being rejected out-of-hand,
as recently compelled me to re-engage ietf-http-wg over implicit C-E.

Further re-hashing the facts wouldn't have served any purpose. Pointing
out that the WG needed to step off and reconsider architectural
ramifications proved much more effective, possibly because someone not
named Roy or Julian reinforced it? Not my desired result, but far
better than what was proposed.

So, not a waste of my time, since my posting is limited to when I'm too
exhausted from spending time with the dog to do anything else but catch
up on Web architecture -- which I remain passionate about despite my
utter disillusionment with the direction it's taken (and the reasons for

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 12:10:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:03 UTC