Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> The HTML WG no longer has any standing to 'support' or not 'support' the
> use cases and requirements of the EME specification - the Director of the
> W3C has communicated this clearly.
>
> Please do not mis-represent the HTML WG has having any authority to
> do so.
>

My understanding of the decision is different. But nevertheless with your
interpretation why are you raising these proposed new requirements in the
WG at all ? Surely you should go directly to the CG with these ? Surely the
bug should be closed as out-of-scope, if the above is what you think.

...Mark


>
> cheers
> Fred
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:45:59 -0700
> From: watsonm@netflix.com
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: public-html-media@w3.org; public-html-admin@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.
>
>
> Fred,
>
> The bug was not closed by the WG, but by Glenn.
>
> As I mentioned in the bug there has previously been no support for the
> three requirements you propose, though I have no objection to us
> re-considering those proposals for a short while.
>
> The questions of whether, by not adopting these requirements, we do or do
> not break with historical precedent for the "open web" and whether, if we
> do, that is a cause for concern are questions for the CG.
>
> A pragmatic approach on your part would be just to raise these questions
> in the CG. However if you wish to go through another round of consideration
> in the WG, we can do that. I just don't expect a different outcome from the
> last round of discussions of the same issue. You can re-open the bug, which
> is usually the first step before jumping to a formal objection.
>
> ...Mark
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:
>
> I formally object to members of the HTML WG  marking bug 21727
> as invalid, see: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21727
>
> This bug adds use cases and requirements to the EME specification.
>
> The W3C has indicated that such work on the EME specification may proceed.
>
> The director of the W3C has also communicated that meta level discussion
> regarding the use cases and requirements of the EME specification is to
> occur in the Restricted Media Community Group and this group is not
> charted to have any standing to mark bugs at invalid.  Disagreement
> with use cases and requirements is a meta level issue, thus the HTML WG
> clearly has no standing to reject use cases and requirements on the
> EME specification.
>
> I demand that the HTML WG reopen bug 21727 and work to ensure that
> the EME specification meets the use case and requirements.
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>
>