- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:37:19 -0400
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Hi Alex, On 07/15/2014 09:12 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org > <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote: > On 07/11/2014 07:37 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On July 10, 2014 at 8:32:38 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile > (chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>) wrote: > I would be interested to hear of things that Marcos > would have > > done but didn't because he was required to resign, and whether > anything would have mitigated the situation except changing the > rules. > > Well, let see. I set up the TAG GitHub account and was happily doing > API reviews. I was also starting to rewrite the architecture of the > Web document with Henry, but had to stop. I couldn't justify the > time > and travel commitment to my employer (Mozilla) if I wasn't > officially > on the TAG. [ . . . . ] > > That's an interesting data point. Thanks for sharing it Marcos. > But apart from demonstrating the obvious loss of a good person > making good contributions, at the same time it demonstrates the fact > that your employer's agenda trumped your personal desire to do good > and contribute to the Web. > > That's an incredibly strange intepretation. Mozilla continues to do good > and contribute to the web. Mozilla continues to support TAG members > (Dave and prevously Anne). But they're not funding Marcos' travel to TAG > meetings as a part of that and, thanks to membership, ahve no reasonable > expectation that his travel would be effective if they /did/ fund it. Agreed. I do not dispute any of that. But the fact remains that his employer's agenda trumped his personal desire to contribute to the TAG: Marcos stopped contributing to the TAG because of his employer's decision. > > Put another way, if an employee came to you and said "I'm going to keep > going to these meetings but can't really participate as an equal" what > would you do? I'm not blaming Marcos, nor am I blaming his management. That wasn't my point. I certainly would have done the same as Marcos, and I probably would have done the same as his manager if I were his manager. > > No matter how well-meaning one is, it simply is not possible to > maintain neutrality (or the appearance thereof) when one's food and > mortgage are paid by one's employer. > > You appear deeply unfamiliar with both Mozilla and Google. I specifically said that I was not singling out any specific company or individual. We are discussing a proposed general rule change -- not a special exception for Mozilla and Google employees. > More to the > point, I'd go out on a limb and say that if you think the people you > elected to be on the TAG are, in general, sock puppets, I recommend you > work to strip the TAG of even its ceremonial authority. I do not think that at all! Quite the opposite! My comments were about the dangers of making a *rule* change -- not about any company or individual. I have personally seen the highest levels of integrity in many of the individuals I have come to know on the TAG and in other W3C circles. And I think the TAG's rule *has* caused a visible loss to the W3C's work. But I think the dangers of a rule change, which could cause a different, less visible harm (but not necessarily less damaging), still exist and must be considered. > > If, on the other hand, you look at our body of recent work, you'll see > it's largely the TAG putting the breaks on (and constructive comments) > towards MOZILLA AND GOOGLE sponsored work in various WGs. > > Categorical statements that can't be reckoned with reality deserve to be > ignored categorically. Reality is that: (a) no individual can be expected to be completely neutral when being paid substantial sums by his/her employer; (b) companies can and do manipulate the good intentions of their employees, whether or not such manipulation is consciously intended; and (c) even the *appearance* of domination by one company could be harmful to the W3C's work. Regardless our good intentions, let's please not ignore that reality in our desire to address the loss of a good contributor. FWIW, individuals I have known on the TAG -- and in other W3C roles -- have had some of the highest personal integrity that I've seen. (And in my experience, those with such high integrity also freely admit that they *cannot* be entirely neutral in such situations.) The W3C -- and the world -- have certainly benefited as a result. But that does not eliminate the danger that I'm pointing out. Again, I apologize if any of my comments sounded like any sort of personal slight. They were *not* intended that way. They were simply intended as a reminder of the inherent dangers that must be considered in contemplating such a rule change -- dangers that do not disappear even when the individuals involved have the highest dedication and integrity: > > Companies routinely manipulate the good intentions of their > employees to benefit the company's agenda. (And I do not mean to be > singling out any particular company or individual here.) > > Stacking a decision-making body with very likable, talented and > well-meaning individuals is the most effective way to do it. The > fact that those individuals may honestly attempt to be neutral does > *not* mean that the net effect is neutral. And again, I'm not > saying that any particular company is consciously trying to stack > the TAG. But conscious or not, that can be the effect. > > Personally, I think it would be okay to relax the TAG's rule > slightly to allow two individuals from the same organization to > serve temporarily and/or with the approval of the AB. But beyond > that I think there would be too much danger of undue dominance by > one organization, regardless of how well meaning the individuals are. > > David Booth Thanks, David
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 03:37:52 UTC