W3C Bars Public From Public Conference 169
xk0der writes "Danny Weitzner, one of the W3C's policy directors and event co-chair, repeatedly claimed in a follow up telephone conversation that, by "public," the W3C actually means "closed to the public." Weitzner was the person who personally barred my colleague from entering the conference."
The story is worth a read- it's very strange. Personally I think this guy is just vying to replace Tony Snow at the White House.
public, who are invited (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:public, who are invited (Score:5, Insightful)
But maybe you're right. The article is so vague and makes so little effort to explain the W3C's side that it only really serves as a platform for flamebait, which is how Taco seems to have decided to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
415 response (Score:5, Funny)
The rest of us got a 417 response - "Expectation Failed"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean "honest technological discussion" then you must have been someplace else.
I'm pretty sure post like your started on day 2.
Re:public, who are invited (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:public, who are invited (Score:4, Funny)
That should clear it up for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
If the meeting can be discussed publicly after the meeting, then what they say is open to publication and discussion anyway.
Unless they keep no notes and do not record the 'public' meeting.
Re:public, who are invited (Score:5, Informative)
Re:public, who are invited (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are two issues here. First no press of any kind were invited so that people could speak off the record. Second the reason that no press was admitted was precisely because of journalists who follow their own agenda
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please resign from the IETF, or whatever body you are part of. I do not want such illucid thinking within a mile of any standards body. Where the conference was hosted, constitutionally, everyone can be press. If you do not want the press, you do not want anyone.
Somewhat ironic that the comment would be posted as anonymous coward here. So he can speak off the record but nobody else should be allowed to.
anonymity has a place on the Internet, so do closed door meetings. The IETF, W
Re: (Score:2)
Declan wasn't the reporter excluded. Anne Broache was the reporter excluded. Declan is reporting on her exclusion.
Why would Anne Broache, in particular, be excluded?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez... Welcome to Soviet Amerika.
One of the consequences of SEC regulation is that if you are an employee of a public company and speak to the press on behalf of the company you can get into real trouble if you say the wrong thing, as in cause a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think it is repressive, or even Fascist, for companies to be allowed to choose when and how they make public announcements? In extreme cases, the consequences of a single unguarded statement by any employee of a company to any representative of the media can be utterly disastrous to that company - and its employees, shareholders, suppliers, and even customers.
That is why companies carefully choose public spokespersons, who usually have appropriate authority, knowledge, and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gore appropriated the money for us. Without a legislative champion such as Gore the Internet would not exist in its current form. The NSF backbone would never have been funded.
Declan was fully aware that he misrepresented Gore at the time he did it. In Senate terms 'took the initiative' means that he was the lead person in getting the money in
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the public. You'd be surprised how many times organizations will put out press releases inviting the media to cover an event, then when the media shows up they lock the doors and say it's a private event even though they sent dozens of faxed invitations and filled up your voice mail to make sure you're coming. Then they get pissed that no one covered their eve
Orwellian Doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
So now we can add "Secrecy is Transparency" to the list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"public" means "non-public"
"secret" is "transparent", and, don't forget:
Weitzner was the person who personally barred my colleague from entering the conference."
"Personally barred" means "impersonally barred"
The Doctor sez: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah; and by country I assume you mean Merry Old(e) England, since "inflammable" dates to the mid-1300s. The shortened form "flammable"
wasn't invented for five more centuries, in the mid-1800s.
Similarly, doctors treat inflammations, not flammations. And politicians
make inflammatory remarks about their opponents, not flammatory remarks.
And when something has finished burning, it has been incinerated, not
cinerated. This use of in- as a prefix meaning "in" or "in
English, the Crazy Language (Score:2)
English did make it a bit confusing by also using in- as a negative. The two in- prefixes have different etymologies.
Not that this helps much. Pity the poor foreigner trying to learn our insane language. ;-)
English, as such a Crazy Language [amazon.com] , may be the hardest language for nonspeakers to learn. Afterall if the pural of "tooth" is "teeth" then why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"? Then again Chinese is pretty difficult as well, as is Japanese. Written Chinese has more than 66,000 ideograms [wikipedia.org] repr
Re: (Score:2)
Some time back, in another forum I asked about this. English seems to be a close competitor of both Japanese and Korean. In all three cases, this seems to be mostly due to their illogical, only-slightly-phonetic writing systems. English may be the most annoying one of the three, because all the other European languages have had major spelling reforms in the past century or so that gave them decent spelling systems. The only holdout is Engli
Re: (Score:2)
"Chinese language" is a term on a par with "Romance language" or "Germanic language". "Chinese" is about a dozen closely-related languages. Calling them all "Chinese" is a lot like calling French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian all just "Latin".
True, it's only been recently, the past 100 or so years, that there has been "1" unified language in either China or the European countries. In Germany it's called High German, or it was, but the German that's spoken colloquially in northern Germany is
Re: (Score:2)
Again, this time with proper code (Score:2)
Well, they also write English words in katakana*, especially loanwords and pseudo-Anglicisms [wikipedia.org]. Japanese has a lot of loanwords, which usually get shortened - for example the Japanese word for part-time work is "arubaito", derived from the German word for work, "Arbeit". The informal version would be "baito". And yes, the word is written with
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what a bitch that English still keeps a few irregular plurals. Never mind that French also has irregular plurals. Never mind that French has irregular *adjectives*. Never mind that French verbs have more distinct forms, so there's more to remember about a verb irregularity. Never mind that French orthography itself is pretty messed up (last four c
Re: (Score:2)
The only real exceptions to this general pat
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what a bitch that English still keeps a few irregular plurals. Never mind that French also has irregular plurals. Never mind that French has irregular *adjectives*. Never mind that French verbs have more distinct forms, so there's more to remember about a verb irregularity. Never mind that French orthography itself is pretty messed up (last four consonants are optional!).
And depending on what gender the subject is, verbs are conjegated differently. If I recall right there are 6 different conjegati
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a _tool_ for making _people_ insane.
Re:Orwellian Doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to bar the press, bar the press -- but don't say it's a "public" meeting, because that's a bald-faced lie. (Anyone know how to translate that concept into Washingtonese?)
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Orwellian Doublespeak (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"marketing" or "advertising" or "spin" or "public relations" comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Orwellian Doublespeak (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing a "private" meeting with a "secret" one.
If I have a 'private function,' of any sort, then it just means that it's not open to anyone who wants to come in. Generally, this means you have to be invited, or there's some other precondition for attendance. E.g., a wedding reception is usually a private or semi-private event. A private meeting would be one where the doors are closed, and only certain people can get in.
This is different from a "secret" meeting, where the very existence of the meeting itself was not disclosed.
The W3C was engaging in a private meeting, not a secret one.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is a Web Science Research Institute Workshop that is sponsored by the W3C.
And Danny has not been at W3C for some time, he is at WSRI. The difference is likely to be easier to understand after WSRI has a building, see my proposal [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, the underlying sentiment is the same. Having a private meeting, where the only thing the general public will be privy to is the final conclusions of the entire committee, is not transparent at all. A big part of the push for transparency is so we know what the decision makers really think...what their arguments are and *how* they reach their conclusions.
I daresay that the first-hand accounts of the constitutional congr
Re:Orwellian Doublespeak (Score:5, Interesting)
So now we can add "Secrecy is Transparency" to the list.
Can we add "Assassination is a Political Contribution" yet?
So... it takes secrecy to ensure honesty? (Score:2)
Thoughts and opinions can only be expressed openly if done in private?
Though I hate to admit it I have to agree with this. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled freedom of speech especially political speech, can only be possible when speakers can remain anonymous. If a person can't remain anonymous then they are not able to fully speak as what they say can be used against them. During the American Revolutionary War many pamphlets written in support of independence were wri
Call TBL (Score:2, Funny)
I warned them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Single Paragraph (Score:5, Informative)
And that pretty much sums up the entire event. As the invitations said, only the results of the event will be public. Thus the reporter in question is proving Weitzner's point by twisting the words to create this story.
Here's what the W3C page says [w3.org]:
TFA quotes part of that and says, "SEE? SEE? It's a PUBLIC event!" No, it's an event about the public that will have its results published to the public. Nowhere does it say that the event is open to the public.
Sorry, there's no story here. Just lame reporters trying to make one.
Re:Single Paragraph (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy [w3.org]
"Space is limited and priority for registration is given to those who have submitted position papers. If you request registration without sending a position paper we suggest that you wait to make any non-refundable travel arrangements."
"W3C membership is not required in order to participate in the Workshop."
"The total number of participants will be limited. To ensure diversity, a limit might be imposed on the maximum number of participants per organization."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see reporters or general public listed. So turning away
Re: (Score:2)
The session announcement:
So: the off-the-record environment will encourage conversations which will subsequently be made public. WTF? On complete analysis, this looks just as screwy as on first glance. People will say things on the understanding that the whole conversation is scheduled to be tran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to enlarge your audience, why would you exclude journalists? The real reason was to limit the scope, not to broaden it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, isn't this exactly what wasn't going to be made public?
I don't really give a shit one way or the other. What pisses me off is that the guy in charge can't just say the truth. If you fucked up on the website, say so. You're not that good of a salesman to try that doubletalk bullcrap and get away with it.
you're farming (Score:2)
Of course the FA says documents will be public and the results and all that, but the point of the FA and the point of this discussion for that matter is why go through the trouble of making all that public if you're going to keep the public out of it.
We're gonna be passed the results without having to say our word on it.
its as if the GPL wasn't really open source, sure its open, here's the pseudo code and the graph depicting how it works but we're gonna keep the actual
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. I happen to be one of the few people around here that cares about the truth. And the truth is that this story (and many others) are overblown non-events.
Because it's a meeting of minds, not a public event. It simp
ill be a man about it (Score:2)
I read the whole thing diagonally and miss the part that sais prior registration was required but membership not required for registration.
So, there you go, im sorry. i just happen to sort of sensitive about all the net neutrality stuff and government trying to regulate the internet. when i first read the thing, it didnt feel right.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a certain truthiness to what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's a great deal of precedent for this sort of approach. For example, the folks who developed usenet learned very early that they needed "moderated" discussions. For those not familiar with the term, this means a discussion that is visible to th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've sometimes wondered about the facts. I'd concluded that it looked like the work of a very small gang with some bots and possibly an early version of what we now call zombie botnets. But I don't recall seeing good evidence that it was only one person. I don't know if you could distinguish that case from just catching one guy, and his buddies all deny any knowledge.
Not that it matters that much. The religious harassment of biological discus
Ambiguity, publicity and patheticy (Score:2)
Give that part of the reason for the event appears to be for government officials to speak freely, I can easily see why they would want to limit participation and observation, especially by the media. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether that's good or bad, but it'
Re: (Score:2)
I quoted the W3C site in my post. If you don't believe me, look again. That exact same quote appears in TFA. Neither place explicitly says it was a public event. It says that the results of the event will be public. The reporter then twisted those words to make it sound like it was a public event that wasn't public.
I dare you to prove me wrong.
W3C's purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to start by suing grandmothers and children found to be sharing the dangerous links to their artists' intellectual property.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was a workshop, not a conference - difference not only in size. The W3C organizes workshops in order better to judge where standards work should be going, or where the W3C should provide guidance.
The W3C is a
Re: (Score:2)
'Cause them tubes need laws!
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
We tried that with Micro$oft but they just turned around a bought all the politicians.
Which might have been the real goal in the first place. Before the Microsoft trial Microsoft did not hire lobbyists. Now they have lobbyists in Washington and make regular political contributions like everyone else. They basically learned to "play ball" and the politicians not only left them alone, but starting doing things for them.
They need something to do in there spare time... (Score:2)
What is the point of working towards the next set of standards if no one is currently up to or following the ones already in place?
Perhape they can use the tyme to push more for companies and developers to follow web standards.
FalconAccess descriptors (Score:2, Funny)
Yawn. Power corrupts, next please. (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I will completely agree this behavior sounds like an egregious example of doublespeak, I can't help but ponder...
"So what?"
All of my own web pages still start with "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">", which I consider just about the last thing the W3C did of any significance to the rest of the world outside their own little social/political clique. If they want to hold opaque conferences on government tra
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I tend to think of that as the first sign that they'd gone off the rails. Since all HTML docs started with <HTML> already, the doctype is a pointless piece of text. The correct modification would have been to allow <HTML version=
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree though that sticking it in SEEMS like redundant information/duplication but the two tags serve different roles in life...
The HTML tag tells the browser this is the start of the html section of the document, render everything between here and the closing tag as html.
The doctype tag tells the browser what sort of document to expect - HTML, XML, FREDSNEWDOCTYPE etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. It's a web browser, if it's not expecting HTML then it needs fixed. The mime-type is already there to indicate other document types are being served. It's just more XML wank.
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
Several things:
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you that this is one of the basic design mistakes in HTML - it should never have been SGML, but it's a mistake easily fixed in the way I suggested above.
Web browsers are expected to handle a variety of SGML- and XML-derived
Maybe by you; I prefer my web browser to handle HTML and only H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your browser doesn't handle RSS. MSIE7 handles RSS. RSS is popular. Ergo to the general public MSIE7 is superior in this regard to your browser.
XML is just plain shit designed by idiots who can't handle BNF. Bin it.
Wait, I'll tell everyone. I'm pretty sure the whole world will just stop using XML and switch to your proposed document format (you DO have a superior alternative, right?) in a week.
A pointless exercise in the extreme. Buggy rendering should be eliminated as quickly as po
Re: (Score:2)
HTML, or some other derivative of SGML [wikipedia.org], such as XML. See HTML DTD [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
XML is junk and undeserving of the attention of any serious programmer. Badly designed with goals that could all be achieved by much older and well established methods in a more efficient way. Total garbage. It should be left out some winter night to die.
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly what your issue with it is--you didn't specify--but if it is the excessive size o
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you think of HTML as a one-off creation unrelated to anything else in the universe, you're right. But actually, HTML is a dialect of SGML (and not a very well-conforming dialect, either). SGML had been around for some decades by the time HTML was devised, and HTML was consciously designed as a special case of SGML.
That <!DOCTYPE
I, for one, welcome our... (Score:2, Funny)
-WtC
Article is painfully vague (Score:5, Insightful)
There better be a Slashback article in response to this...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the private one so I can attend (Score:2)
Weitzner is a bonehead (Score:2, Insightful)
Article Quote (Score:2)
Seems straight forward enough to me...
-Bill
Oh boy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are the comments areas getting so full of Daily KOS 1-liners that they need to be spilled over into the headlines too?
I expect that kind of thing in the forums, but it doesn't belong in my RSS feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Run! (Score:2)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Pri
Article a little overboard? paranoid? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand the point of the article - public!=not public. The description of the meeting was confusing at best, misleading at worst.
Where the article lost credibility for me was the rant on location (more than once). Yes, it is in a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. That doe
Reminicent of Bilderberg meetings (Score:2)
Sounds like W3C is using a page out of the Bilderberg textbook. For shame.
Transparent Government (Score:2)
In other words: So you are unable to see what the government is doing. So they can sneak around behind your back and do bad things to you.
They do ahve a point. (Score:2)
I see this a lot. The press reports what someone says, it's out of context and then everybody assume worst case, or speculate and then it becomes a pain in the ass for the person who did nothing wrong.
That assumes the person reporting it didn't have a bias. I have seen selective quotes from government workers intentional put out of context. I have seen papers that have a known bias(specific political affiliation) and take quotes complet
hypocrites (Score:2)
I have to love it, because it was almost 10 years ago I noticed a problem with an algorithm recommended in the HTML specification and went to w3c.org and couldn't figure out any way to tell them
Re: (Score:2)
So far it has had (it's a bit hard to figure out there have been so many):
-1 overrated
-1 offtopic
+1 funny
+1 underated
+1 underated
-1 overrated
And now -1 Troll!
Kind of like MIT's false openness? (Score:2)
Now, could someone have informed him clearly about who foots the bills for the building? It's not like it's run by a organization [mit.edu] who insists on exclusivity eve