RE: EME is in the scope of the HTML WG

> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 11:46:05 +0200
> From:
> To:
> CC:;;
> Subject: Re: EME is in the scope of the HTML WG
> Fred Andrews:
> > I repeat, the director of the W3C has made no decision regarding
> > the EME work, and this is a matter of recent public record.  Your
> > communication is misleading and misrepresents the director of the
> > W3C and the work of the open web community.
> No, it does not.
> The director (unfortunately) has decided that work on EME is in scope of
> the HTML WG and also made clear that this is not considered to be a
> decision regarding the later acceptance of EME as a W3C standard.
> There are people (like myself) who are convinced that EME can not be
> improved in a way which makes it compatible with the Open Web and
> therefore think that work on EME is both a waste of time (like a
> research project attempting to build a perpetuum mobile) and helping DRM
> proponents.
> But it does not help the cause of DRM opponents at all to misrepresent
> the current position of W3C management.

Your support for the chairs and director of the W3C in their action is
disturbing and I take offense to your accusation that I am
misrepresenting them.  In evidence I quote Jeff Jaffe 20 Aug 2013:

"The Director has not at this time taken a position on the EME spec."

Given that misleading the public into believe that the EME is the work
of the open web community will cause irreparable damage, it would not
be consistent for the director of the W3C to both support the
misleading public advancement of the EME while publicly declaring he
does not support it.  Even if the director supports the technical
exploration of the EME, there is no technical need for the EME to
advance in this public forum - the proponents can make progress in a
closed group in a separate process that differentiates itself from the
work of open web.  How could you support such Machiavellian acts?

Given the conflicting statements from the director and statements from
the chairs that they are simply following his directions, and the
failure of the director to censure the chairs, I believe that he is
personally directing and organizing a propaganda campaign to push
through the EME, and benefiting financially in doing so.  This would
be fine it he were not exploiting and misrepresenting the open web
community in doing so, but this makes it a very serious criminal

I would note that Andreas did not support my no-confidence motion in
the Chairs of the HTML WG:

After the failure of the EME FPWD to reach consensus the chairs in
collusion with the director set a criteria for publication as 'showing
a good faith effort to address bugs' (there were also attempts to add
time limits and other technical challenges).  The chairs subsequently
posted support for the FPWD on the basis that a good faith effort had
been made, and threaten posters of objections who argued that it was
not a good faith effort - effective censuring the debate.  Further,
the chairs only acknowledged their own opinion.  This is all a matter
of public record.

I believe the chairs had no intention of the EME passing a fair and
open process and manipulated the process to ensure the EME advanced
while having a semblance of being the product of an open process.  I
believe the chairs are willfully misrepresenting the EME as the
product of the open web community.  I find your support of the actions
of the chairs and director disturbing and you certainly are not
helping the open web by doing so.

Further, the director of the W3C supported the chairs in many ways,
including calls for those who do not agree with the EME to take their
work elsewhere or develop their own specification.  Neither of these
actions can counter the misrepresentation of the EME as being the work
of the open web community.  It takes only one credible EME
specification passed off as part of the open web to irreparably damage
the open web.  These statements from the director are also a matter of
public record.

Further, the director of the W3C directed the creation of the
'Restricted Media Community Group' and filled the chair of this
community group with a close staff member.  The chair failed to answer
complaints that the groups name and purpose is misleading or to
clarify them.  The chairs of the HTML working group direct dissenting
opinion to this group.  I believe this group is nothing but a
propaganda tool of the director of the W3C and his conspirators.

We also have a corroborated witness statement to the effect that
the EME will advance irrespective of dissenting views, and this
is hardly the work of an open process.  The actions of the
director of the W3C and the chairs appear consistent with the

The open web community has no confidence in the chairs of the W3C HTML
WG or the director of the W3C and can not accept the EME in any form
as representing the work of the open web community. If you support
them then you can join them.

Your actions have achieved nothing and have been countered by being
deferred while the EME advances and consolidates its propaganda to be
later disregarded by the director personally.  The director and chairs
have the same strategy for dealing with other objectors - sidelining
their discussion to the Restricted Media Community Group and offering
only to consider their views at a later stage in the process when they
will likely argue that the EME is the product of the open web process
and should stand. If you want to help then get with the program.



Received on Sunday, 29 September 2013 00:27:02 UTC