Re: Trust

On 10/20/2013 9:41 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> Sorry, I do not consider Tim's actions as 'taking no position on the 
> EME spec.'.

There are several statements or questions which I think need 
clarification/correction.  I'm contributing my best effort to set the 
record straight.

>
> Q. Tim is responsible for the exclusive membership of the working group?

No.  Members join at will.  Invited experts can also participate in the 
technical dialog.

>
> Q. The membership has a particular focus on DRM for content protection?

It is true that the current EME draft has an assumption about an 
underlying DRM system.

>
> Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus to advance the EME 
> spec?

A consensus is required to advance the spec to Last Call.  The Working 
Group has not reached that point and may not ever reach that point.

>
> Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus on the content of 
> the EME spec?

I don't understand this question.  The EME spec is under development.

>
> Q. Tim was responsible for advancing the EME specification even though 
> it lacks any consensus from the web community?

Tim was responsible to declaring "content protection" in scope.  The 
Working Group determined that it was timely to publish the First Public 
Working Draft.  That early status can take place despite Issues being 
raised against the spec.

>
> Q. Tim is responsible for advancing the EME in parallel to more open 
> specifications, and for advancing it parallel to specifications adding 
> positive features in contrast to the EME's anti-feature?

I don't understand the question.  The EME spec was brought forward by 
several people in the working group; not by Tim.  I'm not aware of 
proposals which have "more open specifications" that have been proposed.

>
> Q. When I attempted to add a 'save as' feature to the EME spec, Tim 
> dictated that his select group could disregard this feature?

No, I don't think Tim said anything about this feature.

>
> Q. Tim has told others to take their work elsewhere?

No.

>
> Q. Tim has told others to prepare an alternative spec?

Back in May, in my blog posting, I welcomed alternate proposals.

>
> Q. Tim has supported the HTML WG chairs in their handling of the EME 
> and in their claims that a good faith effort was made to address 
> issues reported in bugs while threatening those wanting to discuss 
> this matter?

In W3C process, there is no reason for Tim to be involved until Last Call.

>
> Q. Tim created this community group and directed those who do not 
> agree with the direction of his select group to discuss the matter here?

I believe Wendy created the community group.  We all directed those who 
would like to discuss issues here.  We also directed folks with 
different proposals for content protection to bring them to the HTML WG.

>
> Q. This community group has no standing to vote on the content of the 
> EME spec?

Correct.

>
> Q. Tim has dictated that 'content protection' is in scope for the HTML WG?

Correct.

>
> Q. Tim uses the statement that 'content protection' is in scope as the 
> basis for advancing the EME spec?

I think it would be fair to say that the WG used the statement to 
advance EME to First Public Working Draft.

>
> Q. Tim has not defined 'content protection'.

I think it is fair to say that noone has rigorously defined it, although 
it has been discussed a fair bit on this list.

>
> Q. The EME is an essential component of the DRM system?

This point is debated.  It is certainly possible to build a DRM system 
without a standard API for it.

>
> Q. Tim states that the W3C is not 'embracing' DRM?

> Q. Tim continues to state he has taken no position on the EME spec.?

Yes.

>
> cheers
> Fred
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:14:30 -0400
> From: jeff@w3.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: watsonm@netflix.com; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Trust
>
> On 10/18/2013 10:57 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
>
>     Yes, we see their statements claiming that they have 'not taken a
>     position'.
>
>     We also see their actions.  Tim has personally dictated that the
>     EME advance, and has dictated the form of the spec that has
>     advanced.  The EME is not a product of an open process, but a spec
>     dictated by a narrow select group.  The EME is Tim's
>     specification, not the open webs specification.
>
>
> Tim has stated that content protection is "in scope" for the HTML 
> working group.  He has not taken any position on the EME spec.
>
>
>     Sorry I do not consider this 'taking no position'.
>
>     Stop claiming that the EME being advanced has any legitimacy as an
>     open standard.
>
>     cheers
>     Fred
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:15:04 -0700
>     From: watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>
>     To: pdm@zamazal.org <mailto:pdm@zamazal.org>
>     CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
>     Subject: Re: Trust
>
>
>     I do feel bound to point out what Jeff and the staff have
>     repeatedly said which is the W3C has not taken a position on
>     whether EME should be approved or not. The topic is in scope (and,
>     btw, it's always a big ask to suggest that a topic isn't even
>     *discussed*), but that doesn't mean we will find an acceptable
>     solution. The much more significant decision will be whether to
>     approve the EME specification. At this point W3C will have to
>     decide whether the issues raised against the specification have
>     been sufficiently addressed. Since I expect there is likely to be
>     a Formal Objection to any approval by the Working Group then it
>     will be the director who decides on this (IIUC).
>
>