Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

[Joe Andrieu]

Tantek Ç elik wrote:
> Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email 
> that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any 
> objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will 
> shortly be banned from the mailing-list for a week.

Tantek,

For the record, I do object.  I understand that you are doing what you
feel is the best interest of microformats. However, the mailing list is
the only commons that speaks to the entire microformats community.  It
seems to me that if someone has an issue with governance, the commons is
the right place to make a case, especially as there is no other vehicle
for doing so.

Governance so far has been autocratic and sometimes heavy handed. Your
categorization of these topics as "meta-discussion" only reinforces the
feeling that microformats is run by a cabal that refuses to address and
incorporate feedback from its constituents.  We have no formal
mechanisms for approving or changing microformats, nor do we have any
formal mechanisms for engaging on governance issues.  These are serious
shortcomings.  Again, I encourage you to read the Clay Shirky
article[1].

Andy, having said that, you do sometimes rub people the wrong way and it
can make it hard to keep a positive disposition when discussing things
with you.  I'm also frustrated by the lack of engagement on governance
issues and the wily-nilly approval/change process, but there's been good
work done by this community and there's reason to hope that these issues
will eventually be addressed.

[1] http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

-j

--
Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651