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

Fred Andrews wrote: 
>
> 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.

Actually Fred, there was no *Unanimity*. There was Consensus. Most were in
favor or remained silent, some objected.  The W3C process states:

     "Consensus: A substantial number of individuals in the set support the
decision and nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection."


Did you register a Formal Objection? 
And to be crystal clear, even if you did/do register a Formal Objection,
under the section "Managing Dissent", it also states:

     "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they
cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly
considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and
reasonable, the group SHOULD move on."


The perma-thread you and others maintain on this list, and over at
public-restrictedmedia, is proof that the concerns of the dissenters are
being duly and patiently considered. There is no assurance there however
that your concerns will alone singlehandedly change the course of events -
it doesn't work that way.


But, you cry, what about my Formal Objection? The Process document is clear
on that too:

     "An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical
arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection"

I want you to take careful note of the insertion of the word "technical" in
that sentence. Not opinion, not hyperbole, but real *technical* reasons why
there is an objection. This is not a political policy group Fred, this is a
technical working group. If you have concerns over policy, take those
concerns to a forum that addresses policies.

     "Formal Objections that do not provide substantive arguments or
rationale are unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director."


Fred, I have repeatedly pointed you to the W3C Process document
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html), a stable
document last edited NINE YEARS AGO (2005).

If you want to call the process into question, it would extremely helpful
for all concerned if you bothered to show us you have read this document.
Failing to do so deposits your responses in my category of "mindless ranting
by somebody who doesn't get it".

I don't say that to be uncharitable, but seriously Fred, if you want to call
process into question, read the damned process document. Those are the rules
we are all working under: you, me, the Chairs, everyone. If you don't like
those rules, you are free to leave this group. You DON'T however have the
right to attempt to re-write those rules because you don't like them, or you
feel that you are disadvantaged by them. That is simply not how it works.
Remember, when you joined the HTML Working Group, you agreed to work within
those rules - nobody forced you to accept those terms, you did so willingly.

>
> We are still not amused.

Neither am I Fred, neither am I. Stop wasting everyone's time. If you
believe there has been a process failure, cite the specific process and
explain what you believe the failure is. (There is, BTW, a process for that
too). Continually posting to this and other W3C lists with tin-foil-hat
conspiracy theories, and rants and accusations about Privacy and Security
without substantiation are simply distracting noise. 

Respectfully

JF

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 16:21:08 UTC