This is a detailed response to 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 the problematic comments:
Domenic I appreciate your apology, but... this does not sound like an apology. I've tried to be very polite in reasoning, I've suggested "discussing it in DMs, if you are open to it." You've chosen the public path.
The previous comment asked 4 questions that you ignored. None of these were answered before, in fact you haven't answered any of my questions since we have communicated.
I find the statements made in your comment to be very offensive and inappropriate. I was afraid this discussion will come to this point, but the signs were inevitable. Please revisit the code of conduct:
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.
And you have been heard! Repeatedly. And answered, several times. By both implementers and other web developers.
The previous comment asked 4 questions that you ignored. None of these were answered before. You haven't answered any of my questions.
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"?
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 your 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 you ignored. You haven'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 ("duplication").
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"?
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 you haven't answered, but instead wrote a page-length comment of personal remarks that nobody asked for.
Since I've proven viability with a trivial implementation, there's no point in repeating "huge implementation costs" and "unviability".
I'll be closing or marking as off-topic any such discussions outside of this issue.
It is understood that you're not interested in this viewpoint, in fact say "it makes no sense". You've made your point crystal clear.
- Remarks that violate the WHATWG Code of Conduct, including [...], hurtful, oppressive, or exclusionary remarks, are not allowed.
Opposition that you don't agree with is still on-topic. Since you very firmly disagree, it is oppressive to censor those comments. I kindly ask you to unhide the unwanted opinion and stop these actions.
Researching the use-cases and implementation constraints cost me at least 2 days. You've immediately rejected the report, without input from any interested person. Even spam isn't handled this swiftly. Oppression is against the WHATWG code of conduct.
I've made that issue to discuss implementation details that you've opposed on the original issue. Your request to move that discussion is only possible if you undo these actions and delete or hide the comment. Please do so.
The following statement should be clear enough: I kindly ask you to only make technical comments to me, no more personal remarks. Instead, consider giving detailed, technical answers to the questions already asked.
This discussion was made unnecessarily difficult by the constant push-back and disregard for developer needs and implementation details. I hope it will return to a focused, professional atmosphere. This is a low-priority feature, there's no need for rushing and discourtesy, we can deliberate in a polite and professional manner.