W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > May 2013

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 06:53:34 -0400
Message-ID: <518CD1AE.7030006@intertwingly.net>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On 05/09/2013 09:40 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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.

I agree with you that Bjoern is perfectly correct.  The decision was to 
request publication.

And furthermore, I agree that this is a matter over which we clearly do 
not have consensus.  Per the process[1]:

- 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.

> cheers
>
> Chaals

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 10:54:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:23 UTC