Removing public-html from Cc list.
On Sep 11, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
hi maciej,
>Can we please not post out-of-context comments from IRC on the
working group list, with the apparent intent of instigating a
flamewar?
My intention was not to instigate a "flamewar" my intention was to
further debate on a legitimate subject.
Asking provocative rhetorical questions on a public mailing list based
on comments in an external forum is an attack tactic, not a legitimate
means of debate. Asking people to explain actions taken by others they
are seen to be associated with is also an attack tactic.
The most inflamatory response of the 2 so far, is yours.
I see the IRC logs as a legitimate source of material to inform the
debate as are many other public sources and as such will continue to
quote them. I have cited the IRC log so people can go and read more
if they desire to understand more fully the context.
Dropping context and asking people people to follow a chain of links
to find it is the sort of thing that makes people feel attacked and
compelled to defend themselves. Even more importantly, you dropped the
context that neither Anne nor I made any edits to the spec ourselves,
so asking us to give the basis for such decisions is not appropriate
in the first place. That context is not to be found in the IRC logs,
yet the framing of your email appears to hold us somehow responsible.
>Being unwilling to ever change your own mind, and picking a fight
with people who change their position to be closer to yours, are
both >unproductive.
I for one am willing to change my mind if research and discussion
provide a basis for such a change. That is why i have started doing
research and asked others in the HTML WG to provide data to continue
it.
>More significantly, trying to create a dispute where there is none
is trolling. I will do my best to look past it in this case but
please try to >keep this kind of abusive behavior off the mailing
list in the future.
The working group is not agreed upon changing the status of the alt
from required to optional and so in this sense there is a dispute
(disagreement).
You framed your email as if you have some bone to pick with myself and
Anne. Your email was addressed to us in addition to the list, and the
salutation named us directly: "Hi anne and mjs". Such "open letters"
are a form of needless grandstanding and divisiveness that the chairs
have specifically asked us not to engage in. Especially when there is
no actual substantive disagreement. If the point you care about is
making alt mandatory, what is the value in attacking me?
And how exactly is asking the question
"Just wondered what testing was done before deciding to make the alt
attribute optional? Or was the decision based solely on expert
opinion?"
being abusive? provocative maybe.
Your email was clearly meant as an attack, or at the very least to
make people appear foolish, by dropping the relevant context. Based on
your remark here, it was clearly deliberate, and you seem to think
this kind of behavior is acceptable. I am frankly tired of this sort
of behavior from the self-styled accessibility advocate camp, and if
you continue to do it I will call you on it.
Furthermore, you choose to provoke me for coming around to agreeing
with you more. I hope you can see this this is not only abusive but
foolish as well, if your goal is to persuade people and not just to
score cheap debating points.
I guess in summary, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Why
call me out by name? The only reasons I can think of is if you
actually disagree with something I said (which you don't appear to) or
if you are just trying to stir up trouble.
Regards,
Maciej
