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

On 21/04/2013, at 16:31, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 04/21/2013 09:50 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> 
>> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 3:10 AM, David Singer wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:04 , Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com
>>> (mailto: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.
>> While I tend to agree that Fred is barking up the wrong tree (and not
>> really helping his case here) - Glenn is being a complete [insert
>> favorite swear word here] for saying things like: "The fact that a
>> few individuals such as yourself oppose EME is of little
>> consequence."
> 
> And none of this is welcome on public-html-media.
> 
> ---
> 
> Simple facts:
> 
> There are a set of people working on a known set of requirements.
> 
> Those set of requirements are controversial.
> 
> The chairs consulted with W3C management to determine if work towards addressing requirements of this kind are something the W3C wanted to be provide a home for.
> 
> The answer came back as an unambiguous yes.
> 
> At that point the chairs looked at the objections which were received to date.  Given that they were hopeless entangled with the scope question, we asked that bugs be filed and worked on.
> 
> ---
> 
> Simple consequences:
> 
> Once the chairs get a final report on how those bugs are addressed, the chairs will decide how to proceed.  The W3C process is quite clear[1]:
> 
>   Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish
> 
> People who appear to disagree with W3C's management's position are welcome to take that up with W3C management.  What they are not welcome to do is impede work that has been determined to be within scope.
> 
> People who would like to work on additional requirements that are determined to be within scope are welcome to do so.  Again, what they are not welcome to do is to impede work by others.
> 
> Which leads me back to the subject line of this email.  As has been pointed out several times, an editor's proposed resolution of a bug is not a Working Group decision, and therefore is not something against which a Formal Objection can be raised.  If anybody would like to get a Working Group decision on this matter, the process is described in the Decision Policy[2].
> 
> In simple terms, the first things the chairs would ask for is a concrete proposal which addresses the proposed use case.  A failure to do so would lead to a decision.  That decision could then be the subject of a Formal Objection.  If that were done, the chairs would then forward on the basis for their decision.  I would suspect that the objectors in such a scenario would not get the outcome they want.
> 
> ---
> 
> Simple conclusions:
> 
> Those that object to the current EME requirements being worked on in the W3C need to take that up with W3C management.
> 
> Until or unless W3C management's position changes, the chairs will ensure that those that wish to work on EME can do so free from interference.
> 
> Meanwhile, those that would like to see additional requirements be addressed need to demonstrate that there are feasible solutions to those additional requirements.
> 
> And finally, those that continue to ignore this advice will ultimately be removed from the Working Group.
> 
> - Sam Ruby

Thanks Sam. I completely agree with and support everything above. 


> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#escalation

Received on Sunday, 21 April 2013 15:50:23 UTC