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.

4 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. When I was a little kid by niceone · · Score: 0, Troll

    When I was a little kid I was confused about this private / public thing... maybe the W3C have the same problem? My misunderstanding came from a misreading/mishearing (I forget which) of this phrase: "public hair".

    --
    ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
  2. Seems like by cs668 · · Score: 0, Troll

    there is at least one douchebag in every organization :-(

  3. Kind of like MIT's false "openness"? by sethstorm · · Score: 0, Troll

    Given the person's stated background, I'm not even the least bit surprised he reached this conclusion. That being, that as someone's educational background is more exposed to restricted admissions universities such as MIT, the more they want to implement that as an end-run around the public. The only clear misinformation out of this was with the W3C.

    Now, could someone have informed him clearly about who foots the bills for the building? It's not like it's run by a organization who insists on a large Far Eastern presence.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  4. Re:Single Paragraph by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0, Troll


    Hey moron...it said it was a public event on W3C site.

    And WTF is, "...an event about the public?" Nice job pulling that one out of your ass.

    Stop apologizing you troll. There was no reason to bar the report and even one W3C member, stated in the article, thought it would be fine.