HI Mike,
Your recent flurry of messages on the issue tracker are way out of
line[1][2][3]. It is inappropriate for you to address other WG members
in this manner and I don't want to see it again (to anyone). The low
level of decorum that you and others on the WG feel they can maintain
is disgraceful. Calling the results of my time spent volunteering for
this WG, researching issues, discussing and understanding the views of
other WG members and distilling that into actionable items is
definitely belittling and insulting. Don't imagine for an instant that
it is not.
Also, defending others’ comments that I created a mess is still
inappropriate no matter what ways you find to justify in your mind.
These are all legitimate issue which I raised in good faith and have
volunteered my own time to address. Closing them prematurely would be
inappropriate as well.
In your defense, would you care to point to a document somewhere
(including statements of the co-chairs) that clearly states a policy
or policies, regarding the issue tracker, that I (or Gregory)
violated? Please point to the working criteria for raising issues in
the issue-tracker that these issues do not meet.
As for my comments about Andrew, I have numerous times cordially
requested Andrew clarify his remarks when they have seemed hostile.
Typically Andrew simply withdraws from the conversation rather than
providing elaboration on his meaning. This has been a pattern and I
would not use the term 'hostile' lightly. To take the focus off of
Andrew directly, there has been a pattern of knee-jerk responses where
some WG members respond with a repertoire of canned answers. The
recent response I cited was simply the most clear case of it having
nothing to do with the conversation. I'm not calling for any action
regarding such WG disruptions, but I will not hesitate to call them
out when they occur (especially so blatantly as calling a zero
implementation proposal too much "implementation complexity").
Keep in mind most of these issues were in the issue tracker in some
form when we were using the wiki. They simply failed to get moved to
the new issue tracker when that was setup.
Take care,
Rob
[1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0000.html
>
[2]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0001.html
>
[3]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0002.html
>
