zlacker

It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard).

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?

>>scroll+(OP)
>It’s asking for feedback the author knows how to deal with (and disregard).

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.

>>charci+72
Can you provide an example of feedback that hasn't been ignored?

>>scroll+(OP)
Exactly "give constructive and technical feedback" means "we will make this thing, either give feedback that would add to it in s technical way or shut up"

>>charci+72
Which might be wrong of course. The legal argument that this smells of monopoly abuse and might be a factor in the coming forced split of alphabet could actually stop such proposals most effectively.

>>charci+72
Yeah, no, I’ve been in this game before as well.

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.

>>charci+72
What if my problem is with the existence of the standard itself instead of implementation details?

>>lozeng+v4
https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

>>hoover+Va1
Then I would suggest that you calm down and be open to creating a safe environment for people to share their ideas. People should be free to propose whatever they want for the web. You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

>>charci+72
> The article is a guide on how you can avoid being ignored and actually contribute to the process of standardization.

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?

>>charci+kK1
> You shouldn't take issue with bad proposals merely existing.

I disagree. If you don't take issue with bad proposals, it increases the chances that those bad proposals will be implemented.

>>charci+kK1
I don't think a safe environment should preclude saying "what the hell man". People should be free to react however they want to proposals for the web that would affect them. Anyone can write a proposal, but a proposal written by Googlers for Google has oomph than a proposal written by some guy.

>>charci+hJ1
1. This isn't external, it's internal

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.