Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Bars Public From Public Conference

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tricky-word-speak dept.

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.

14 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. public, who are invited by Bizzeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    its the same public as any other public thing like this... the general public can get an invite. but cannot walk in from the streets.

    --
    portfolio
    1. Re:public, who are invited by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I was going to suggest that "public" means that discussions from the conference can be openly discussed afterwards, in contrast to some I've been to where the proceedings were confidential.

      But maybe you're right. The article is so vague and makes so little effort to explain the W3C's side that it only really serves as a platform for flamebait, which is how Taco seems to have decided to use it.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    2. Re:public, who are invited by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it's just your standard, plain jane corruption. It's in the right place.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:public, who are invited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      [the article] only really serves as a platform for flamebait, which is how Taco seems to have decided to use it.

      slashdot is little more than a flamebait in itself anymore. gone are the days of honest technological discussion. when the politics section got put up i knew slashdot had jumped the shark.

    4. Re:public, who are invited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, in most countries, public means that the public can just walk in. It means open for everyone. The other invitation-only "Public", as you describe it is just the same as the Davos Conference hosted by the World Economic Forum. I think most people agree is NOT a very public Conference, although, they anyone who gets an invititation is welcome and they try to invite all who are relevant.

    5. Re:public, who are invited by PoderOmega · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Orwellian Doublespeak by TheWoozle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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." "There are times when in order to have an open exchange of ideas, you need to provide an off-the-record environment, which is what we did," Weitzner said.

    So now we can add "Secrecy is Transparency" to the list.

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
    1. Re:Orwellian Doublespeak by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand what they're doing, but calling it "public" is a load of crock. It's a closed session. They should call it that.

      If you want to bar the press, bar the press -- but don't say it's a "public" meeting, because that's a bald-faced lie. (Anyone know how to translate that concept into Washingtonese?)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  3. W3C's purpose? by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Yawn. Power corrupts, next please. by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    by "public," the W3C actually means "closed to the public."

    Although I will completely agree this behavior sounds like an egregious example of doublespeak, I can't help but ponder...

    "So what?"

    All of my own web pages still start with "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">", which I consider just about the last thing the W3C did of any significance to the rest of the world outside their own little social/political clique. If they want to hold opaque conferences on government transparency, let 'em. No one really cares what they do anymore.

    Should I also feel outraged that Calvin won't let Susie join the GROSS club? Ill-behaved little boys gloating in their personal positions of power, nothing more.

  5. Article is painfully vague by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article...er...blog entry is painfully vague, and even the summary fails to include a link to the W3Cs comments. Am I supposed to take a blogger's comments at face value, with only a few choice out-of-context quotes?

    There better be a Slashback article in response to this...

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  6. Weitzner is a bonehead by woboyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Time to change the "guard" at the W3C methinks. Idiots like this don't help in the promulgation of what are supposed to be open standards, and if there are govt. officials that are reticent to speak up in a truly public forum I can only ask them "Who do you think pays your salaries?".

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  7. Oh boy... by Minute+Work · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally I think this guy is just vying to replace Tony Snow at the White House.

    Are the comments areas getting so full of Daily KOS 1-liners that they need to be spilled over into the headlines too?

    I expect that kind of thing in the forums, but it doesn't belong in my RSS feed.

  8. Article a little overboard? paranoid? by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can understand the director's point - to get government officials to speak freely, they need assurance that their words won't be twisted into something that kills their funding/votes/public image/whatever.
    I can understand the point of the article - public!=not public. The description of the meeting was confusing at best, misleading at worst.
    Where the article lost credibility for me was the rant on location (more than once). Yes, it is in a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. That does not imply that it is open to the public merely by its purpose. The pentagon is a federal building, payed for with taxpayer dollars. Does that imply anyone can waltz in there and listen in on any-old-meeting-they-please? (I concede the difference: the pentagon never advertises its meetings as "public")
    I sense a little over-reaction here.

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?