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

Robin,

I understand the meaning of the work consensus.  Why don't you look it up.  There was no consensus and the Chairs failed to record this matter.

> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:28:31 +0100
> From: robin@w3.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: public-html-admin@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat  Working   Draft
> 
> On 13/02/2014 01:02 , Fred Andrews wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Anything not forbidden by the Process is allowed; including naturally 
> CfCs (which are common practice in supporting asynchronous decision making).

I doubt that.

> This grants groups (and within groups, chairs) wide freedom to organise 
> and operate as they see fit. This is on purpose. It makes it possible 
> for groups to operate outside of any procedural straight-jacket and to 
> pick the mode of operation most conducive to succeeding in their work. 
> Altogether too often we forget this.

This is a simple matter of recording a call for consensus.  To accurately record the result does not constrain the group in a substantive manner.

> Of course, this leaves the door open to all manners of things. A group 
> could decide to arbitrate between two incompatible positions using the 
> best-of-three in an air hockey game.

Well, no, this would not be professional and would bring the W3C and the HTML WG into disrepute.

> One may have doubts as to the 
> technical quality of the outcome, but it would be fine per Process. At 
> the other end of the spectrum, participants could very well resort to 
> assassination of dissenters.

That is a despicable statement, absolutely despicable.

We are here to argue for user security and privacy, the health of the open web, and the health of the web economy.

> Arguably, this may run afoul of numerous 
> legislative hurdles and it could be considered behaviour antisocial 
> enough to warrant a mailing list exclusion warning. But it would be well 
> within Process.

It absolutely outrageous to suggest that the "assassination of dissenters" is "well within Process".
 
> Given that you are making Process-based objections while flaunting the 
> fact that you do not understand the Process, I would recommend 
> transitioning at least some of the way from cocksure to full of doubt.

I have a good understanding of professional conduct in these matter, and I do understand the meaning of consensus, thank you.

Please expect the FBI knocking on your door.

cheers
Fred