- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:04:29 +0000
- To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "'Patrick H. Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:47 AM > > Isn't it that good all trick again :--) > > What trick is it? You ask a question to which nobody can answer negatively, > then claim consensus, but then never resolves the issue. It's unfortunate that you see it that way, because instead of making a new thread to discuss your concerns with EME, you have contributed to the noise around a process issue which, if you read through the CfC, you'll see was handled appropriately. > That's the usual pattern used by lobbies and how de facto standards or > proprietary solutions are promoted. > > I believe many of us have been there many times. > > I am not sure this is the best way to get this discussion back on track one day > or the other. If there is any. Start a new thread where you and others may lay out your concerns about the EME specification. Then instead of wasting energy trying to argue a process issue you don't understand, you can instead talk about the meat of your concerns. Feel free to start with the (unrelated to the CfC itself) concerns that were helpfully cited in the CfC. That removes the burden of having to find them all.
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 16:04:59 UTC