Re: [xtm-wg] Inappropriate Changes to XTM DTD/DTD modifications

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Since from what I've read for the most part here makes a priority of 
expediency over fair process (apart from Jean's kind words), and since
I have little energy left to deal with this, I'll try to make this
short.

Regarding Eric's contention that a difference of one vote in favour of 
the proposal represents "consensus", I might remind him that it was only
one vote that changed the outcome of the US presidential elections,
and that *certainly* did not represent a consensus. He seems to be now 
operating under the W3C consensus rules, whereby "consensus" seems to
be that as determined by the chairs.  He may feel either personally or 
as chair pro temp able to declare that the current Final Draft represents
the product of this group. I can only repeat that for me it doesn't. 
That conflict alone should not halt any forward movement, and I'm
absolutely convinced that nothing I say or do at this point makes any
difference. Which makes me wonder why I bother, sadly.

I have expressed both private and public disagreement with the current
process, and having been a part of both the previous and current document
cycle, I must say that any accusations of a lack of openness leveled upon
the last editors are in my opinion certainly true now. That Steve Newcomb
also seems to believe that whatever is necessary to achieve publication
is acceptable to him, I'm saddened. I do not consider that "success." 

While I fought to maintain what I considered proper attribution in the
XTM DTD, I was willing to compromise on basically everything else. Up
until the last day I did what was asked of me, and contributed as much
as I felt comfortable, even while disagreeing with what was happening,
process-wise. 

In the end what made up my mind to resign as associate editor was not 
that the post had by that time essentially been taken from me, was not
that I was no longer effectually maintainer of the DTD files as I had 
been for many months, not that my name was taken from the top of the 
specification (none of these changes made without asking or any polite
consideration), not that I felt I was merely now a secretary to the needs
of the editors -- no longer a contributor (I received messages saying 
"don't make any content changes, even to whitespace") -- no, it was that
the "Final Draft" specification included a DTD that had been modified with
changes that by all counts could not possibly represent the consensus
of the AG, and was done in accordance with the personal wishes of the
chairs. If the change had been something they disagreed with, I'd accept
they were operating in the interests of the group. But these changes do
not. They are wrong, by all measures I can find of proper and fair 
process. It was for me the final straw. I was until that time willing
to walk away and let them finalize the spec without me, without public
protest.

If people in this group feel that the product is more important than the 
people, then I'm saddened by this. I'd rather not produce a specification
if the process used not only was unfair to some of the members, and
ignored very obvious discrepancies in consensus required to make such
changes, as according to our charter. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but as I
have said previously, I find myself regretfully less and less inclined
to be a part of an organization controlled outright by two people. If
the membership is not empowered, then we are not needed, except as
commentators. If that is truly the case, then this group was not really
needed, as Steve Newcomb and Michel Biezunski could have produced a
specification without us. 

Steve Newcomb recently wrote me a profoundly moving message about what 
he defines as leadership. I do not consider what has happened in the
past few days as representative of leadership, given what he wrote. I 
feel cheated, not out of any personal "agenda," but in trying to 
represent the interests of this group when I felt that the editors no 
longer did. 

Since my input seems less and less relevant to this group, and perhaps
even damaging, I should perhaps halt any further public input and 
remain solely as observer. Expediency should never been considered an
acceptable excuse for incorrect or abusive behaviour. Whether or not
the editors have made any mistakes will be judged by each person, and
will become evident or not as we move forward. Since this issue seems
to be less important than "success" to the majority of those who have 
commented, there's nothing much else for me to do here. I do not 
consider what has happened as a "success," and given the current 
dynamics of the group (which I accept an equal responsibility for being
a part of), then this has been an outright failure.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981322436/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com