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

On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:04 , Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> 
> I forward this unwelcome threat. 

Fred

it's really poor form to forward private emails to the list.  It's also poor form to take friendly advice as a threat.  Glenn is in no position to threaten you; he is observing how annoying you are, and trying to alert you to the fact that you are not coming over well.  Far from threatening, this is a collegial and friendly move.

> I would note that some members of
> the work group and the W3C appear be threatening to use a 'censure'
> to silence work of the HTML working group that they do not agree with.
> 
> I believe I have acted with integrity and in good faith and would welcome
> a public examination of my conduct and even a censure vote.
> However I would reserve my right to defend myself and would reserve
> the right to examine the conduct of the Director of the W3C, and the
> Chairs of the working group and of some of the proponents of the
> EME because my actions are an attempt to hold them to a becoming
> standard of integrity.
> 
> cheers
> Fred
> 
> From: glenn@skynav.com
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:51:23 -0600
> Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.
> To: fredandw@live.com
> 
> Fred,
> 
> You are really starting to annoy the group. If you keep this up you are likely to be censured. Is that your goal? You are hopelessly clueless about how the W3C works. How many times do you need to be told to stop acting like you can tell the group what it can or can't do?
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the 1st CfC on EME failing is completely irrelevant to whether EME will move forward or not. The WG can and will continue to develop it, and it will be eventually published. The fact that a few individuals such as yourself oppose EME is of little consequence.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 07:44 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
> 
>  > 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.
> 
> Your understanding is incorrect.
> 
> 
> I claim that same sanctity for the use case and requirements
> submitted in bug 21727.
> 
> You are welcome to produce an extension spec and attempt to build support around your additional use cases.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> I encourage you to read the decision:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html
> 
> In particular, the final paragraph.
> 
> 
>  > 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.
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> You are welcome to produce specs that conform to additional requirements that are within scope.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Incorrect.  Again, I refer you to the final paragraph in the link above.
> 
> cheers
> Fred
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.