W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:05:58 -0500
Message-ID: <51155AA6.8070807@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
CC: public-html-media@w3.org
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) the following Encrypted Media Extensions document:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-fpwd.html
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Wednesday January 30, this resolution will carry.
>
> Considerations to note:
>
> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger patent policy review.
>
> - As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents.

This call for consensus does not pass.

The chairs found that there were two categories of objections.  The 
first was that this was not the type of work that those that expressed 
this objection felt belonged at the W3C.  Others clearly differed.  The 
second was that this work did not contain enough information to be 
implemented interoperably, and was not on a path to do so.

For the first objection, the co-chairs sought advice from W3C 
Management.  The following email is the result:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html

Based on this input, the chairs find that this work is in scope.  Should 
this situation change, we will revisit the decision at that time.

Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the 
candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented 
interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has 
lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear 
and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media 
Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is 
complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to 
proceed with these bugs.

Note that the W3C process requirements for a FPWD[2] are fairly low:

     Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the
     Working Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if
     it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.

Accordingly, when we re-evaluate the request to publish an FPWD, we will 
consider only concrete and specific objections that have been filed in 
the form of bugs. The determination will be based on whether there is a 
good faith effort to resolve such bugs, but with no requirement that all 
new or currently open bugs have been closed

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 20:06:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 20:06:28 GMT