(The piece where the author suggests focusing on "technical arguments" when the issue at hand is fundamentally political is frankly laughable; can't really tell if it is naïveté or deception.)
It is essentially just asking for constructive feedback. When people just say not to do it, insult the author, or make assumptions about the proposal that aren't true the comments are not actionable.
Even if an issue is political you can still make a constructive argument on the risks that adopting the proposal has.
You know, if your government body of choice came up with a terrible idea in a draft bill and enraged the population, it would not be appropriate for them to go on TV and say “the population should offer constructive criticism in the form of legal arguments”. So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
Yes, and you can see how many people are being ignored. The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization.
>So what the fuck is this guy saying exactly, that you feel is a valid approach to handling public outcry?
For example, people may think coming up with legal arguments may be an effective way to engage in the proposal and try to shut it down. The article describes that legal arguments will not be productive.
> according to Google there's no such thing as a harmful feature and Google's approach is never wrong; it just might need refining
This is some grade-A toxic behaviour from google. It gives the same vibes as the infuriatingly phrased: “oh sweetly you just don’t understand”
"It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest; the only way to deal with him is to outvote him." -William Jennings Bryan
"Hear, hear! It’s all a question of trusts and monopolies. Doctors have a monopoly of medicine just as parsons have of God. You can’t get a parson to admit the arguments of an agnostic, because his salary depends on his not letting the agnostic refute him; and you can’t get an ordinary doctor to look kindly on psychoanalysis or autosuggestion because their success would make him superfluous. All this is not a question of the Life Force at all; it is a question of bread and butter." -C. E. M. Joad
The author’s perspective is that their team is right, the use case is valid and MUST be addressed, and if there is an issue in the proposal, it’s a fixable technical issue but the essence of the thing has to happen.
The author will never accept that the premise is wrong, because that would not be constructive feedback.
The premise is wrong. Thus, this blog post is useless, and this defence of “the process” is an utter waste of time for you and me alike.
But the article assumes that the goals are acceptable, so the only valid feedback is about the best way to accomplish those goals. There is no room there for people who think the goals themselves are unacceptable.
I think that what they're wanting to do is terrible. Why in the world would I want to contribute to standardizing the method of accomplishing them?
I disagree. If you don't take issue with bad proposals, it increases the chances that those bad proposals will be implemented.
2. It's not feedback, it's a bug report on something being broken
You don't get a gold star for being like "See, they're listening!" when they allow people internally involved in the project the privilege of having their bug reports heard.
The proposal is de-facto bad. The goals it wants to achieve are bad. There is no "technical argument", just like there's no "technical argument" to being against a proposal that says you must share all your passwords with me. Stop the sealioning.