RE: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop

If the task force is no longer willing or able to exercise its duties
then I call for it to be dissolved.  The specification has the backing
of some of the largest technological businesses in the world and
if they are unable to find the technical competence to defend their
position against a member of the public then I suggest that it is
not defensible.

I am open to being shown faults in my technical position, to
defining the issues in a manner than can be objectively analyzed,
and moving forward.  It is not me who is opposed to the technical
work.

I would note that the EME specification does not even define
the problem it is trying to solve in a manner that is of any value
for an objective technical analysis - no wonder we can not make
progress.  I have made attempts to make a start by trying to
reach consensus on some basic definitions, but the task force
has refused to address this path.

Given the lack of defined use cases and requirements, it is
impossible for anyone else to suggest an alternative solution
because there is no objective test to judge the technical merits.

The EME is effectively a proposal for a specific solution to an
undefined problem that the task force wants to standardize.
There really is no technical basis for considering other stake
holders because anything else is just not the specific solution
that the task force insists on and thus the task force can
reject it on this basis.

I suggest this is not an appropriate position for standardization
work here.  I am open to being told otherwise?  It would mean
that the EME specification is immune from technical objections
because there would have no technical basis on which to object.

Perhaps someone needs to review this process.

cheers
Fred
 

From: watsonm@netflix.com
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: public-html-media@w3.org
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:52:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure    CDM-level interop









On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:

>
 Of course you are entitled to submit whatever material you

> like. Glenn and I *have* been providing you with feedback

> throughout this long thread.



I would note that you do not claim to have provided good faith

constructive feedback!



I consider this discussion ended at this point. Although there remain many incorrect assumptions and errors in logic in your last response, there is no value in continuing when you have indicated - twice now - that you do not trust the proponents of the
 specification to engage honestly in the discussion.



…Mark