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

> From: singer@apple.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:42:26 -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 14:28 , Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:
> 
> > David,
> > 
> > What are you talking about?
> 
> The question asked.  I don’t think I can be any clearer. To be listened to, you need to answer the question.  See <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process.html#three-month-rule>.  The chairs merely need to know whether the document meets the needs outlined in the bullets there (notably "to incorporate their decisions into readable public documents”, so they ask the WG whether the decisions the WG has made about the content of the documents are recorded in the document).

The Chairs framed their question to the working group as a Call-for-Consensus.   There was no consensus.  I can not be any clearer than that.

Where in the documented you cited does it even permit the Chairs to frame this question as a CfC?

Where does it permit the Chairs to declare that not responding will be taken as support?

btw: We are all waiting on the EME proponents to respond to repeated requests to supply the use cases and requirements for the EME.  These are inputs to the designed process that should have been available when starting work on the EME.   So David, please answer the question if you want the EME to be take seriously!

We are still not amused.

cheers
Fred