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

> From: plh@w3.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: public-html-media@w3.org; public-html-admin@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:10:07 -0400
> Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.
> 
> On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 14:24 +0000, Fred Andrews 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.
> 
> The Group has standing to mark bugs against its own specifications as
> Invalid.

The Working Group has already held a CfC and it failed, so if the Group
again has standing to decide on the use cases and requirements of the
EME then please accept the result of the CfC and mark work on the
EME as invalid and cease further work within the W3C.

My understanding is that after the CfC failed, the W3C and some
proponents refused to accept the decision, so the W3C gave
sanctity to the use cases and requirements of the EME.  It is a matter
of public record that the W3C overruled the CfC to declare the work
of the EME as in scope and the W3C and the proponents have been
using this decision to deflect the obvious lack of consensus.

I claim that same sanctity for the use case and requirements
submitted in bug 21727.

Further, my understanding is that the W3C is attempting to design
a system involving the Restricted Media CG that seeks to
deflect any discussion of the validity of the use cases and
requirements of the EME to a group that has no standing to
decide on the validity of these issues within the HTML group.
If this is to be understood then all use cases and requirements
of the EME should be deferred to the RMCG and the HTML WG
would have no standing to invalidate those in bug 21727.

I am just calling for the W3C to apply the directions that it
has made in a fair manner and with integrity.

> It indicates that it rejected the use case in this particular
> case.

> You may disagree with the conclusion and would like to escalate
> the issue but that doesn't prevent the Group from marking it as Invalid
> in the meantime.

Well, then please apply the decision of the CfC and mark the EME
specification as invalid.

> The CG was created specifically to consider the paired
> challenges of openness and access-restriction, in order to seek a
> solution that considers both today's business and technical realities
> and the long-term health of the Web. I don't see how your use case makes
> any progress on the considering "both today's business and technical
> realities and the long-term health of the Web". The CG doesn't get to
> pick the use cases and requirements on behalf of the Working Group
> however but the CG is certainly welcome to propose use cases and
> requirements to the Working Group.

The matter has already been decided within the Working Group.

Sorry, your scheme to defer the dissenting views to the RMCG will
not work - I for one reserve my right to have a say within the
work of the Working Group.

In conclusion, this matter has already been decided and you do not
have the numbers.  Please accept the decision of the community
and show some dignity.

cheers
Fred