W3C Bars Public From Public Conference

xk0der writes "Danny Weitzner, one of the W3C's policy directors and event co-chair, repeatedly claimed in a follow up telephone conversation that, by "public," the W3C actually means "closed to the public." Weitzner was the person who personally barred my colleague from entering the conference." The story is worth a read- it's very strange. Personally I think this guy is just vying to replace Tony Snow at the White House.

Comments

Single Paragraph

[AKAImBatman]

Weitzner, a lawyer and Washington insider before moving to the W3C, said making an event discussing government transparency less transparent was necessary because government officials could then speak more freely "without wondering how the press would interpret what they have to say."

And that pretty much sums up the entire event. As the invitations said, only the results of the event will be public. Thus the reporter in question is proving Weitzner's point by twisting the words to create this story.

Here's what the W3C page says:

Position papers received for the Workshop will be posted publicly on the Web. In addition, a final document summarizing the outcome of the Workshop and the suggested future actions, will be posted publicly. Conversations and results are public.

TFA quotes part of that and says, "SEE? SEE? It's a PUBLIC event!" No, it's an event about the public that will have its results published to the public. Nowhere does it say that the event is open to the public.

Sorry, there's no story here. Just lame reporters trying to make one.

Re:Single Paragraph

[shawnce]

It does state that the workshop doesn't require W3C membership but participants require registration... so did this reporter register? (note registration window closed on the 7th of June)

http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy

"Space is limited and priority for registration is given to those who have submitted position papers. If you request registration without sending a position paper we suggest that you wait to make any non-refundable travel arrangements."
"W3C membership is not required in order to participate in the Workshop."
"The total number of participants will be limited. To ensure diversity, a limit might be imposed on the maximum number of participants per organization."

Re:Orwellian Doublespeak

[Kadin2048]

That doesn't make sense.

You're confusing a "private" meeting with a "secret" one.

If I have a 'private function,' of any sort, then it just means that it's not open to anyone who wants to come in. Generally, this means you have to be invited, or there's some other precondition for attendance. E.g., a wedding reception is usually a private or semi-private event. A private meeting would be one where the doors are closed, and only certain people can get in.

This is different from a "secret" meeting, where the very existence of the meeting itself was not disclosed.

The W3C was engaging in a private meeting, not a secret one.

Re:public, who are invited

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been involved with W3C and can tell you first-hand Danny runs W3C like a personal fiefdom, an exclusive club of which he is the fuhrer. Steve Bratt, TimBL are great guys and they do not get into such things, but Danny is a real a**hole. Any current/former W3Cer would tell you that.

Re:public, who are invited

[Zeinfeld]

I have an advantage here since I am actually in the meeting. For the reasons Declan in particular would be excluded, see my blog. Declan has a history of deliberately misrepresenting statements, in particular he was the origin of the myth that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. We are talking about using technology to support E-Government. Many of the speakers do not have permission to speak to the press. Others such as myself do have press speaking rights, but are not speaking for our companies. The history of why we built the Web 15 years ago are not something my employer would or should share. Anyone could attend the workshop, there isn't even an entry fee. All you had to do is to register in advance, to submit a position paper and to agree that the statements made are not for attribution. This is incidentally the press terms that the IETF operates on, we do not speak for our employers at the IETF.

Re:The Doctor sez:

[jc42]

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"

Yeah; and by country I assume you mean Merry Old(e) England, since "inflammable" dates to the mid-1300s. The shortened form "flammable"
wasn't invented for five more centuries, in the mid-1800s.

Similarly, doctors treat inflammations, not flammations. And politicians
make inflammatory remarks about their opponents, not flammatory remarks.

And when something has finished burning, it has been incinerated, not
cinerated. This use of in- as a prefix meaning "in" or "into", goes
way back to Latin. English did make it a bit confusing by also using
in- as a negative. The two in- prefixes have different etymologies.

Not that this helps much. Pity the poor foreigner trying to learn
our insane language. ;-)

(And nobody has yet pointed out that we drive on parkways and park
on driveways.)

Re:public, who are invited

[Zeinfeld]

True, "creating" isn't quite the same as "inventing", but it's still a highly over-inflated claim and it's very easy to see how people could get the two confused.

Gore appropriated the money for us. Without a legislative champion such as Gore the Internet would not exist in its current form. The NSF backbone would never have been funded.

Declan was fully aware that he misrepresented Gore at the time he did it. In Senate terms 'took the initiative' means that he was the lead person in getting the money into the bill.

Re:public, who are invited

[Zeinfeld]

Although I do understand that this was actually "by invitation only" and only the results were public, I think your argument that the reporter was known for misrepresentations is irrelevant. If there is a truly public you can't selectively throw out people who may or may not be total liars.

There are two issues here. First no press of any kind were invited so that people could speak off the record. Second the reason that no press was admitted was precisely because of journalists who follow their own agenda.

Declan failed on both counts.

If you are press, you are not the public.

Re:W3C's purpose?

[Kopretinka]

Public or not, what exactly is the W3C doing organizing a conference on Government Transparency in the first place? Shouldn't they be working towards the next set of standards for the Web or something? Or are they losing focus and trying to become the regulators of everything that touches the Web?

It was a workshop, not a conference - difference not only in size. The W3C organizes workshops in order better to judge where standards work should be going, or where the W3C should provide guidance.

The W3C is a standards body that thinks, as opposed to other standards bodies that just provide the name and a voting process.