zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
The proposal author (who locked the issue[0] on Github) also commented on HN and has, so far, remained silent here too: >>36825097

[0] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

>>EvanAn+in
They have also violated an important Code of Conduct [1], to the point of even aggressively closing valid complaints [2]. The Googlers RupertBenWiser [3] and yoavweiss [4] are really just toeing the Google line. What's super gross is even yoavweiss tried to play pretend that the original issue they forced closed, without comments or reading, was "spam" [5]. I believe both of these users are acting in very-bad-faith, and not correctly observing any ethical codes of conduct in Engineering.

It's super telling they know by how they are acting, by locking down the GitHub repo.

It's very depressing how far both Google and Googlers have fallen. What was once a home to innovation, growth, and technical creation is now just ads, abusing their market position to give Chrome an insane advantage during the later years of the browser wars, and more of the same.

It's probably time to bring anti-trust action against Google. Also if you're not already, please move to Firefox and stop using Chrome. Mozilla stands against this and these engineers pushing it [6].

[1] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

[2] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

[3] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser

[4] https://github.com/yoavweiss

[5] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

[6] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852#is...

>>urda+mX
Claims of code of conduct violations on the basis that the technical proposal itself is a violation of the Positive Work Environment provisions is a stretch. It is, however, a clear violation of the Priority of Constituencies[1], including the dictum about who is in control: the Web must enhance individuals' control and power[2].

Having said that, the comment that Weiss links to when citing himself...:

> I understand many folks here are upset about this proposal. I urge you to actually read the proposal, rather than rely on rumors about what it does or doesn't propose. If it's at all helpful, I wrote a few words about ways you can constructively engage with proposals you don't like.

... almost certainly does run afoul of the W3C's provisions for acceptable and unacceptable behavior outlined in the code of ethics and professional conduct. Implying that someone who is "upset" about the proposal is responding to rumors and that it is okay to admonish them to "actually read [it]" is both uncharitable and noxious to the discussion. There's a good reason why HN, for example, has an explicit rule against accusing people of not having read the article.

1. <https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constit...>

2. <https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#control>