This is a follow-up to a private report I've made to allow the Steering Group to resolve this issue discretely.
I've spent 2+ weeks on the research, implementation and specification of the search element. The implementation for Chrome is complete, WebKit and Firefox are in progress. However, my work has faced constant suppression by an editor who spent less than a few hours on this topic, but takes actions to undermine my work and prevent me from contributing to the HTML standard and Chromium - two projects in which he has authority.
- Rude remark: "One more attempt at being crystal clear [...]", "I would also appreciate if you stopped trying to tell us how to run a standardization process."
- Censoring opposing viewpoint
- False statement: "And you have been heard! Repeatedly. And answered, several times. By both implementers and [...]"
- No implementers participated.
- Suppressive remark: "I'll be closing or marking as off-topic any such discussions outside of this issue."
- False statement: "others have addressed it point by point".
- No, nobody has discussed the implementation details.
- Immediately closing a proposal without reading it.
- On 13 Dec. the editor has revoked my access to chromestatus.org to stop progress on the implementation of the search element. Abuse of authority, disruption.
These actions show a clear intent to suppress knowledge crucial to the standardization process, to devalue my work and to prevent me from contributing.
- Please be kind and courteous. There's no need to be mean or rude.
- Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
- Remarks that violate the WHATWG Code of Conduct, including [...], hurtful, oppressive, or exclusionary remarks, are not allowed.
- If a moderator creates an inappropriate situation, they should expect less leeway than others.
- if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained about and apologize.
In case of a conflict among the community of contributors, the editor is expected to go to significant length to resolve disagreements.
The root of the issue is not whether the editor agrees with the findings - as the misleading comments suggest -, but the fact that the editor did not following proper standardization process. Crucial questions were not investigated, eg.: "What are the use cases?", "Evaluate how well each of the remaining solutions address each use case and how well they meet the requirements." I've answered those questions, but my input was rejected and discredited. This goes against the standards of professionalism and the WHATWG's principle of openness.
The cause of the misconduct is a disagreement regarding the viability of the search element with form functionality. The editor hasn't evaluated that solution, has no knowledge of the relevant codebase in browsers, or the actual impact of the feature, yet insists that it is unviable.
I've made a trivial implementation of said element to prove its viability and explained it in great detail. The editor ignored this evidence, immeditely closed the issue where I've summarized it and he promised to censor further mentions.
OTOH the editor refused to give any evidence to support its claims of unviability, only discussing it in 3 vague and incongruent sentences that don't meet the standards of engineering. When asked explicitly to explain and justify these claims, he responded with a 13 sentence long demeaning personal remark, but no answer to the questions.
Although I've repeatedly brought up the inappropriateness and asked for cooperative behavior, the next and only interaction was to revoke my access to chromestatus.org, which is necessary to progress the implementation of this feature. The justification of these actions were factually false claims (such as: implementers have discussed this solution).
- Restoring the censored comment (2).
- Reopening the issue (6).
- Hiding (3), (5).
- The SG can ask the editor to restore my access to chromestatus.org, as it is relevant to the WHATWG's work, even if not a part of it.
- Due to continued damaging behavior: prohibiton to negatively affect my work. As that's the only form of interaction I've experienced the request is a complete prohibition to get involved with me and the topic of the search element, except for answering the unanswered technical questions as accountability requires.
The search element is a simple and low priority feature. Since I've already written the specification and the implementation, I'm offering to accept the responsibility of being the editor of this topic. Other WHATWG editors who value my work are welcome to join the review to ensure the WHATWG's quality standards are met. I've invested many times more effort, I'm more motivated and prepared for this topic than the original editor, therefore progress will be faster and the result will stand on a stronger foundation.