On 2 Jul 2014, at 5:13 pm, Eric J. Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> The only e-mail to you that I find in my Sent Mail even remotely >> along these lines is: >> <http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]> >> >> Were you referring to that, or something else? >> > > Something else. You've only given out two "official" warnings in recent > years; one of them was addressed at me, and I'm still unhappy about it > because I felt I was *objecting* to disruptive behavior from the > corporate lobby suggesting that the *entire RFC process* was borked. > Maybe go back and look into that? Coupla years ago at least. Julian has > some off-list e-mails I'd be happy if he shared with you. /me digs open archived e-mail from the NAS… Ah, you probably mean this: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0388.html> … which was in the context of a fairly nasty thread. I stand by what I said then; you were distracting from the work, not helping, and you were singled out because you ignored an explicitly warning. While venting spleen may make you feel better, it’s not productive for the work. In particular, the thread started as: <http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]> … which was about creating an optional profile for some implementations to use. Your first interjection was: <http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]> … which linked to: <https://web.archive.org/web/20101220072637/http://saxonica.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2010/11/4/4671786.html> … and had the eventual effect of completely de-railing a reasonable discussion. There were absolutely ways you could express your technical objections in that discussion without smearing people’s motives. In fact, we resolved not to create a browser-specific profile for C-D parsing, which appears to have been the outcome you desired. > It's what I mean when I say that non-corporate-types are marginalized > on ietf-http-wg, which has led to further warnings like the link you > referenced -- continuation of a pattern favoring corporate takeover, > leading to my continued disinterest. It just doesn't matter to me, as I > believe architecture will out in the long term, and I've never had a > problem with saying "told ya so" which I believe will be the case with > HTTP/2 adoption as well. We’ve had several “non-corporate types” (if I understand what you mean by that phrase; it’s perilously close to dog whistling) participate actively, be welcomed to the effort, and make substantial contributions, so I reject that characterisation. What matters is the quality of your ideas, and the attitude you bring to the work. >>> But, I must strenuously disagree -- the last thing I trust >>> is that contributors here will put the interests of the Web ahead >>> of the interests of those cutting their paychecks. >> >> I find that a bit sad, but OK... >> > > I find it sad, too. But that doesn't mean I fail to recognize reality. > >> >>> Otherwise, architectural concerns wouldn't be scoffed at as they >>> are. But, as you've made quite clear to me, bringing up these >>> concerns will get me banned as they're political, not technical, in >>> nature. But I think that's what HTTP/2 is all about, so I'd best >>> shut the **** up about it. >> >> OK. I'm not sure what's causing the vitriol here, but I apologise if >> I've contributed to it. I don't believe I ever said you'd be banned >> for contributing; I'm only try to maintain a professional environment >> that focuses on data and outcomes, not ad hominems (which dismissing >> someone's viewpoint because it's "corporate" is). >> > > Well, the corporate folks objection to my postion constituted, in my > opinion, ad-hominems against my architectural arguments, which is why > your warning continues to rankle as I was only defending my position, I warned several people privately; there was more than one bad attitude on display then. You were warned publicly because you chose to ignores the private warning. > political as it may have seemed -- but again, that's the reality of > HTTP/2 development as I see it, the winning arguments have more to do > with corporate bottom-line interests than they do architecture; where > else should I discuss that issue? Down the block from the abortion > clinic? ;-) > > Let's just say that your definition of "ad hominem" and mine, differ. > I feel I raise legitimate concerns, or I wouldn't post them, regardless > of whether they're political or technical in nature. My challenge > remains, give me a technical basis for some of the decisions made? > > You say I should not mention the political reasons, but again, when the > decisions run contrary to what's best for Web architecture for no valid > technical reason, what recourse do I have but to call them out for being > political in nature, whether you like it or not? The work inevitably involves political issues. There’s a difference between working through them — e.g., identifying the stakeholders, balancing the concerns, trying to find shared ground — and smearing your opposition. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
