Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

On 04/18/2013 10:45 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
> Fred,
>
> The bug was not closed by the WG, but by Glenn.

Indeed.  Formal objections are to Working Group Decisions.

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews

> As I mentioned in the bug there has previously been no support for the
> three requirements you propose, though I have no objection to us
> re-considering those proposals for a short while.
>
> The questions of whether, by not adopting these requirements, we do or
> do not break with historical precedent for the "open web" and whether,
> if we do, that is a cause for concern are questions for the CG.
>
> A pragmatic approach on your part would be just to raise these questions
> in the CG. However if you wish to go through another round of
> consideration in the WG, we can do that. I just don't expect a different
> outcome from the last round of discussions of the same issue. You can
> re-open the bug, which is usually the first step before jumping to a
> formal objection.
>
> ...Mark

- Sam Ruby

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com
> <mailto:fredandw@live.com>> wrote:
>
>     I formally object to members of the HTML WG  marking bug 21727
>     as invalid, see: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21727
>
>     This bug adds use cases and requirements to the EME specification.
>
>     The W3C has indicated that such work on the EME specification may
>     proceed.
>
>     The director of the W3C has also communicated that meta level discussion
>     regarding the use cases and requirements of the EME specification is to
>     occur in the Restricted Media Community Group and this group is not
>     charted to have any standing to mark bugs at invalid.  Disagreement
>     with use cases and requirements is a meta level issue, thus the HTML WG
>     clearly has no standing to reject use cases and requirements on the
>     EME specification.
>
>     I demand that the HTML WG reopen bug 21727 and work to ensure that
>     the EME specification meets the use case and requirements.
>
>     cheers
>     Fred
>
>

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:00:48 UTC