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

On Fri, 10 May 2013 01:36:43 +0200, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
> wrote:
>
>> * Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> In the interest of having proper public records, I would like to ask the
>> Chairs to revise the text above. The Chairs do not have any authority to
>> approve requests for publication as First Public Working Draft. Only The
>> Director can do that. And for Him to do so, the Chairs have to record
>> the decision of the HTML Working Group to request publication. The above
>> does not record anything along the lines of "The HTML Working Group has
>> decided to request publication", as is required to request publication.
>> I'm also asking the HTML Working Group to direct the Chairs accordingly.
>>
>
> I'm certain that what Sam means is that the chairs have made a
> determination of consensus in the WG that publishing should proceed  
> within the defined process [1],

I doubt they have called "consensus", but "resolution". But then that's  
all that is required.

However, I think Bjoern is perfectly correct to nitpick the process  
minutiae and request the chairs make it clear that they have followed the  
process exactly to the letter.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 01:40:59 UTC