RE: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working Draft

David,

What are you talking about?

This is a simple Call-for-Consensus, and it required the Chairs to record a lack of consensus and they failed to do this.  There are precedents in the EME FPWD CfC in which the Chairs recorded that there was no consensus.   Sorry, procedures have not been followed.

If the W3C management decides to allow the EME work to continue irrespective of a lack of consensus then this is a separate matter, and it is certainly not a matter for the Chairs to declare in the CfC outcome.  The Chairs may wish to communicate such are decision in future.

As to your claims of 'gracious handling' - we not amused.

cheers
Fred

> From: singer@apple.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:29:49 -0800
> CC: rubys@intertwingly.net; public-html-admin@w3.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working  Draft
> 
> 
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 13:25 , Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Point of order.  This is a Call-for-Consensus and the Chairs have failed to record an outcome.
> > 
> > The Chairs note objections, which demonstrates a lack of consensus, but failed to record this outcome.
> > 
> > This CfC is invalid and any continuance of the EME based on this CfC is invalid.
> > 
> > Further, I dispute the judgement of the Chairs.
> > 
> > cheers
> > Fred
> 
> Like I said before, you have to answer the question asked.  That the chairs didn’t discard your answers entirely is only owing to their gracious handling of you.
> 
> The question is something like whether the editors have managed the specification so that it correctly and technically represents the current state of thinking in the group on how this spec should read.  Not whether it should exist, or whether copyright law should exist, or whether content should be free, or whether open source is a good idea, or any of those other things.
> 
>  
> > 
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:34:19 -0500
> > > From: rubys@intertwingly.net
> > > To: public-html-admin@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working Draft
> > > 
> > > On 02/04/2014 10:44 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> > > > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the following heartbeat
> > > > [1] Working Draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME):
> > > >
> > > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-wd.html
> > > >
> > > > Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> > > > responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Tuesday
> > > > February 11, this resolution will carry.
> > > 
> > > This resolution passes, with objections. Notably:
> > > 
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0011.html
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0013.html
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0016.html
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0017.html
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0018.html
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0023.html
> > > 
> > > Specifically:
> > > 
> > > 1) There remains unresolved Formal Objection which will be dealt with by 
> > > the W3C Director at a future transition point for EME. In particular, 
> > > the content of message #0023 can be brought up at the point where the 
> > > Formal Objection is taken up.
> > > 
> > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#EME-1
> > > 
> > > 2) The publication of this heatbeat in no way inhibits progress on IEME 
> > > or other specifications.
> > > 
> > > 3) W3C management has repeatedly ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML 
> > > WG. Furthermore, the CEO of the W3C has stated that Tim will consider 
> > > EME as to whether it is a valid open solution to content protection at a 
> > > later stage.
> > > 
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0149.html
> > > 
> > > 4) In response to #0018, the "27 countries and territories in the 
> > > Pacific" are welcome to participate in the HTML WG either through member 
> > > organizations or invited experts.
> > > 
> > > > /paulc
> > > > HTML WG co-chair
> > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
> > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > > > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > > 
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > > 
> > >
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
>