Re: EME FPWD CfC is closed

On 02/11/2013 08:53 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> Yes, but there appear to be plans for another CfC soon
> and this is the single most important decision in the history of the
> web so I for one welcome discussion to continue.  The issue of DRM
> goes way beyond just 'media' - a CDM could well implement an
> entire HTML rendering engine.  I do not support your attempts
> to quash discussion and or to sideline it into another mailing list.

W3C Member level discussions typically happen in other locations.  One 
such location is the Advisory Council.  If you sincerely want to effect 
change at the W3C level, public-html-admin is not the place to have that 
discussion.

We are not attempting to quash discussion or sideline it -- to the 
contrary we are trying to get the discussion to occur where it has the 
participation of all the stakeholders and can be the most effective.

> Btw: what is Apple's official position regarding this CfC?  I feel
> silly asking, but do not recall anyone from Apple stating that
> Apple supports the CfC.

We did not seek member company positions on this CfC.

> cheers
> Fred

- Sam Ruby

>  > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:40:32 -0500
>  > From: rubys@intertwingly.net
>  > To: public-html-admin@w3.org
>  > Subject: EME FPWD CfC is closed
>  >
>  > On 02/11/2013 01:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>  > >
>  > > It's fine to continue discussion of the bug proposal in email,
> though it
>  > > should probably be on a technical list rather than on
> public-html-admin.
>  > > I would recommend a new thread on public-html-media for email
>  > > discussion. I think it's usually a good idea to provide more info
>  > > pre-emptively (either in a bug or in email) but it's also ok to wait to
>  > > see what questions are actually asked.
>  >
>  > Reposting Maciej's comment with a new subject line for visibility.
>  >
>  > > Regards,
>  > > Maciej
>  >
>  > - Sam Ruby
>  >
>  >

Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 14:46:30 UTC