- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:25:26 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
CC| |rubys@intertwingly.net
Resolution|--- |NEEDSINFO
--- Comment #21 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> ---
(In reply to Andreas Kuckartz from comment #20)
>
> As I stated in #c15:
>
> "Fixing this issue without canceling EME is (almost) as impossible as
> designing a working perpetuum mobile. For that reason I can not provide a
> change proposal."
>
> Another change would be for the W3C to officially declare that it no longer
> advocates the "Open Web Platform" but only a "Web Platform" (whatever that
> is).
Based on this comment, it is clear that your definition of "Open" differs from
the W3C management's definition of this term. I've encouraged you, repeatedly,
to bring this up W3C management. So far, you have declined to do so, and W3C
management has repeatedly confirmed that EME is in scope.
If you do intend to follow up with W3C management, I have no problem with this
bug being resolved LATER or MOVED and revisited when you complete those
discussions.
If you do NOT intend to follow up with W3C management, then I have no problem
with this bug being resolved INVALID, WONTFIX, or WORKSFORME; allowing you for
Formally Object, at which point it will once again be an issue between you and
W3C Management.
Either way, you need to work with W3C Management. And this bug serves no
purpose until or unless you do so. Which of these two paths you chose to
pursue is up to you. Let us know what you decide. Meanwhile, I've resolved
this bug as NEEDSINFO.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 15:25:32 UTC