W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > March 2013

RE: {agenda} HTML WG media telecon 2013-03-26 - EME bugs discussion

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:51:10 -0400
Message-ID: <1364485870.2781.46.camel@chacal>
To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 00:43 +0000, Fred Andrews wrote:
> > [[
> > [...]
> > We invite those who are interested in the technical discussions
> about
> > Encrypted Media Extensions to monitor or participate in the HTML
> Working
> > Group, which is open to all.
> > [...]
> > ]]
> 
> Let's consider some of the proceedings of this meeting:
> 
> "Mark: we already have a mention that the sessionID
> may be assigned by the CDM"
> 
> If the CDM is out of scope and there are no requirements
> based on the operation of the CDM so this discussion
> has no objective technical basis here.

The work done on EME is not out of scope since we considered the
extensions of the HTML Media API to be within the scope of the Working
Group. As a consequence, the technical discussion on figuring how EME
and CDM interact isn't either and I don't find anything inappropriate
regarding the discussion which are happening at the moment in the HTML
Working Group. 

If you disagree with the technical approach to address the use case of
playback of protected content, you could:
- raise a bug/issue to the HTML Working Group;
- write an alternate proposal (this is similar to how we're handling the
responsive images discussion in fact);
- propose changes to the existing document.

> Thank you for the clarification.  Could you please make sure the
> the Chairs of the HTML WG understand this point and do not
> use their authority to continue to misdirect discussions about
> the EME specification to the Restricted Media Community Group.

The Chairs are directing the general discussion regarding the use case
towards the CG and this is also perfectly appropriate (see further down
for why).

> Suggesting that the EME specification be advanced irrespective
> of ongoing discussions as to its compatibility with the open
> web standard process and other higher level issues would appear
> to conflict with the requirement for, or claim of, consensus in
> the process. 

The W3C Working Groups operate under the W3C Process and I don't see how
the current actions of the Working Group conflicts with it. Anyone is
entitled to raise formal objections against deliverables within the
Working Group. That doesn't mean that the work has to stop (see the
section on managing dissent within groups). The Process also sets
expectation on when the Group has to report the formal objections as
well.

>  Further, directing important input elsewhere
> and declaring that it 'could feed back into the HTML Working
> Group later' would appear to be a failure of process.

There are two reasons why having the general discussion regarding the
use case is better done within the CG than the Working Group itself.

First, the HTML Working Group has a charter and is not allowed to modify
it. Only the Director can and the W3C Process also sets expectations on
what the Director can or cannot do. I already clarified on behalf of the
Director that the working group is allowed, within the existing charter
of the Working Group, to work on extensions of the media interface,
including MSE and EME. As such, having general discussion regarding
whether it's in scope or not within the Working Group is not productive,
since it is in scope.

Second, not everyone from the public or companies is participating in
the HTML Working Group or is a Member of W3C. Participation in the HTML
Working Group has some requirements, such as committing to the W3C
Royalty-Free licensing terms. Being a W3C Member also carries a set of
requirements. However, in this instance, the W3C team believes that the
general discussion regarding the use case are important that we ought to
allow the community at large to discuss it. Community Groups are the
best forum we have today to enable such discussion.

>   Further,
> objections raises later in the advancement process carry less
> weight so attempting to defer objections would be an attempt
> to lessen their weight and a good reasons that this should
> not be acceptable conduct.

It does happen in rare cases that the Director is less willing to agree
with an objection if the comment was made quite late, ie after the Last
Call period. In this present instance, those objections are well-known
from very early on. What makes you believe that the objections would
carry less weight?

> In summary, if the game is not played fairly and with integrity
> then the process failures may well be reason to object to the
> advancement of the EME specification.
> 
Again, the Process does allow individuals to raise formal objections
against a document, but "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by
saying that they cannot live with a decision."

> 
Philippe
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 16:05:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:59 UTC