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

RE: EME FPWD CfC is closed

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:44:41 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W42720E434A15994C1172E2AA0A0@phx.gbl>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>

The email that you link to, from the BBC, calls for a solution that has legal sanctions
to protect it - that is people will lose their liberty and be persecuted over this matter.

Sorry, my sympathies lie with the users and they have my support.  Your path is
your choice, you live with it.

cheers
Fred

From: glenn@skynav.com
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:23:28 -0700
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: rubys@intertwingly.net; public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: Re: EME FPWD CfC is closed


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:





The issue at hand has wider implications than most.  The discussion
started here, continues here, and is planned to return here.  I would
ask the Chairs to be tolerant in this special case.



The W3C are responsible for their own actions.  I really don't care
what they decide because if they support DRM then they no longer
matter as the good work will move elsewhere.



You ask the chairs to be tolerant, but then condescend by claiming that if the W3C "support[s] DRM", then the W3C "no longer matter[s]".
It is statements like this that show how out of touch some individuals are with respect to both W3C process and industry needs [1]. How can you expect a rational discussion in this context?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0153.html


We are extending them the courtesy of helping them understand the issues.
So, your contribution to this thread is merely to help educate the W3C? Rather patronizing aren't you.

  		 	   		  
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 23:45:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2013 23:45:13 GMT