On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:11:05 +0100, Andres Riofrio <[email protected]>
wrote:
Or the other way around. In any case, I was only making a point against
systematic avoidance of major religious holidays, in favor of a more
case-by-case basis.
As ne of the chairs who was involved in scheduling... I try to avoid major
holidays that I know will cause problems for many people. And events which
will do the same - a lot of the group might go to Google I/O or SxSW, or
somehow think the world knows or cares when thanksgiving is and why we
should avoid holding meetings then.
In the end, there will always be someone who can't make a meeting - this
is one of their inherent drawbacks. Thinking about how to make sure it
isn't always the *same* someone is important. (And Josh has a fair point,
there *are* jewish people involved here who take their religion seriously
enough that it causes them a problem). I made an assumption about when
passover is that was incorrect, instead of checking, which contributed to
the problem.
I don't actually believe that your religious holiday/kids' special
event/wife's anniversary/much-anticipated holiday is less important than
the future of the web. But nor do I know of any individual alive whose
presence is critical to the success of a webapps / HTML meeting. There are
many people who will, should they be able to, contribute greatly to that
success, and if we can't get enough people to the meeting we won't run it.
The current W3C process allows people to object to other people having
formal meetings (which strikes me as very asymmetrical - you can't object
to a self-selected bunch of people meeting without inviting anyone else)
without sufficient notice. It also (quite reasonably) allows people to
point out that we have what amounts to a systemic bias in the way we
organise them (more than one - we have a very conscious bias towards
helping out Bay Area residents at the cost of everyone else :( ), which is
what happened here.
If you're likely to attend, please say so. If you're unlikely to attend
wherever and whenever the meeting is, you don't need to say anything. If
you would attend under different circumstances, feel free to say what they
are...
For the record: I prefer to hold meetings in Europe (in the large,
including Russia, North Africa, ...) as it is easier to have Opera people
present at them. But we will make the effort to contribute when- and
wherever the meeting may be.
cheers
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Andres Riofrio wrote:
> Regarding the checklist: perhaps these things are only relevant if
there
are Christian/Jewish/Muslim people in the group. And if there are people
that prefer not to meet on Saturday. It seems to me more reasonable to
expect people with prior commitments, that plan to attend, to speak up,
and
expect the rest to understand and try to come to a consensus. That's why
people ask for objections anyway.
Right, sometimes one might have to make sacrifices and forgo a Saturday
or
observing some religious thingy out of respect for the sectarian nature
of
the W3C membership (and for the advancement of our beloved and sacred
Web).
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
