- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 14 Mar 2013 10:45:48 +0100
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, doctorow@craphound.com
Thanks, and I will follow the advice. That does not change my opinion that the "formal complaint" is outrageous and unfounded. Not being "most effective" and "beating of a dead horse" etc. seem to be quite different things. I would object to a presentation of events which makes the HTML WG as a whole into some kind of victim of a decision made by others which it neither has nor had any influence on. And if one assumes that those within the HTML WG who supported EME and DRM in the past will not change their opinion why should anyone assume that tbl and others are different ? I also note that I was not aware of http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/03/drm_and_the_open_web.html which only seems to have been published two days ago (on 2013-03-12), the same day the text by Cory Doctorow was published. And I also was not aware of http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/ which also probably was not created that long ago. The first time that this CG was mentioned on the HTML WG list was in the "formal complaint" which I insofar consider being lodged in bad faith. > Those people include the Domain area lead, What is his or her name ? > Other people that you might want to contact include the > Advisory Committee and/or the Advisory Board. I have found the list of the names of the members of the Advisory Board - but not their mail addresses: http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/ So far I have not found a list of names of the members of the Advisory Committee let alone mail addresses. I will find out if there is an effective way to contact the AC. BTW: The "WebRTC" account on G+ (which probably is operated by someone from Google) a few days ago in the context of announcing Netflix-support in ChromeOS erroneously stated that EME is a "W3C spec". He/she accepted my correction that this is not the case. But it is interesting that such public statements are made at all. (The way "EME" is used in ChromeOS already proves many of the objections raised by DRM opponents. But I will not go into detail here. We will see how tbl reacts.) Cheers, Andreas
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 09:53:58 UTC