Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

On 02/08/2013 03:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish as a First Public
>> Working Draft (FPWD) the following Encrypted Media Extensions document:
>> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
>> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Wednesday
>> January 30, this resolution will carry.
>> Considerations to note:
>> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger
>> patent policy review.
>> - As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be
>> complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on
>> the contents.
> This call for consensus does not pass.
> The chairs found that there were two categories of objections.  The
> first was that this was not the type of work that those that expressed
> this objection felt belonged at the W3C.  Others clearly differed.  The
> second was that this work did not contain enough information to be
> implemented interoperably, and was not on a path to do so.
> For the first objection, the co-chairs sought advice from W3C
> Management.  The following email is the result:
> Based on this input, the chairs find that this work is in scope.  Should
> this situation change, we will revisit the decision at that time.
> Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the
> candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented
> interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has
> lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear
> and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media
> Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is
> complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to
> proceed with these bugs.
> Note that the W3C process requirements for a FPWD[2] are fairly low:
>      Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the
>      Working Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if
>      it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.
> Accordingly, when we re-evaluate the request to publish an FPWD, we will
> consider only concrete and specific objections that have been filed in
> the form of bugs. The determination will be based on whether there is a
> good faith effort to resolve such bugs, but with no requirement that all
> new or currently open bugs have been closed

The HTML WG co-chairs have reviewed[3] the efforts to resolve these bugs 
and found there to be a good faith effort to do so, and accordingly are 
approving the request to publish EME[4] as a FPWD.

  == Appealing this Decision ==

If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would 
like to raise a Formal Objection[5], they may do so at this time. Formal 
Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team. 
Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition 

- Sam Ruby

> [1]
> [2]

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 15:00:42 UTC