This is a detailed complaint about the code of conduct violating remarks in the <search> element standardization process: previous, last (archive).
Non-technical discussion should be kept to a minimium on the issue tracker. If you wish to respond, please do so here in the comments.
Detailed and polite reasoning preceded this complaint:
to which the answer was backlash.
- Rules that apply
- Intentional miscommunication
- Evasion
- Censorship
- Disrespect towards hard work
- Rude remarks
- Summary
The WHATWG is guided by Principles of openness, utility, efficiency, and freedom.
- 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 following citations are from the comment in question.
I'm sorry that you feel your opinions aren't being respected, or that this community is not open in the way you'd prefer.
I don't blame the community. I've made a complaint about the lead editor's actions.
I'd remind you that oppenness doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
Of course it doesn't. I'm trying to achieve mutual understanding. I understand the lead editor's arguments, but that goes only one way.
it just means that we need to provide a forum for you to be heard.
...
I'll be closing or marking as off-topic any such discussions outside of this issue.\
Contradiction.
And you have been heard! Repeatedly. And answered, several times. By both implementers and other web developers.
The previous comment asked 4 questions that lead editor ignored. OP hasn't answered any of my questions in the prior discussion, instead made 3 short, unclear responses that opined about a different concept I've never discussed (which he calls "duplication"). OP ignored the developer feedback on twitter, the best practice and the implementation details that I've documented in great detail.
scottaohara (co-author) mostly discussed related topics, but not the implementation details. I very much appreciate his professionalism. bathos (developer?) expressed his ambivalent support ("I would be unlikely to employ <search> without <form>").
Nobody else commented since the proposal, no implementers have corroborated the claim of unviability. Who are "both implementers and other web developers"? The claim is a misrepresentation of the discussion.
I apologize for the (now-deleted) message in which I was impatient and short with you; that was indeed not good communication style.
The continued pattern of demeaning remarks contradict this apology.
I myself am not able to invest further time giving you the same answers repeatedly (I appreciate those in this thread who have taken the time to do so, [...]
The previous comment asked 4 questions that the lead editor hasn't answered, but instead wrote a page-length comment of personal remarks that nobody asked for. Why is there time for that?
Since I've disproven the lead editor's assumption of huge implementation costs with a trivial implementation, there's no point in repeating it.
That fallacy was repeated 3 times, each time without proof, leading to a communication breakdown.
I'll be closing or marking as off-topic any such discussions outside of this issue.
OP has demonstrated a strong unwillingness to hear this input that he finds "it makes no sense" despite developer requests and being the best practice (MDN and WAI-ARIA examples).
Researching the use-cases and implementation constraints of the requested <search> element cost me at least 2 days. The detailed report was rejected immediately, without consideration or input from any person.
That knowledge about the developer practices and implementation details was not researched in the standardization process. It should have been the first step. It's unacceptable in a professional context that such knowledge is not seeked or valued, but instead rejected.
These actions show a clear pattern of oppression, which is against WHATWG policies.
This unprofessional attitude was consistent since the first tweet, sometimes going to extreme disrespect. From a prior comment:
One more attempt at being crystal clear: we will add zero new elements with any form-like functionality such as action="". I would also appreciate if you stopped trying to tell us how to run a standardization process.
OP has recognised how inappropriate that was and deleted the comment.
There seems to be an inherent bias towards JavaScript-dependent solutions in the standardization process, which can be also observed in the <dialog> element's saga (eg. comment). This bias manifests in less than optimal results and needs to be addressed instead of alternative viewpoints being oppressed.
Since the above inappropriate behavior comes from a lead editor of the HTML specification, it causes long-term harm to the developer community and web standards. Polite in-person approaches to reflect on these issues failed as OP refuses to reconsider, making a formal complaint unfortunately necessary.