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

On 04/19/2013 07:44 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
>  > From: plh@w3.org
>  > To: fredandw@live.com
>  > CC: public-html-media@w3.org; public-html-admin@w3.org
>  > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:10:07 -0400
>  > Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.
>  >
>  > On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 14:24 +0000, Fred Andrews 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.
>  >
>  > The Group has standing to mark bugs against its own specifications as
>  > Invalid.
>
> The Working Group has already held a CfC and it failed, so if the Group
> again has standing to decide on the use cases and requirements of the
> EME then please accept the result of the CfC and mark work on the
> EME as invalid and cease further work within the W3C.
>
> My understanding is that after the CfC failed, the W3C and some
> proponents refused to accept the decision, so the W3C gave
> sanctity to the use cases and requirements of the EME.  It is a matter
> of public record that the W3C overruled the CfC to declare the work
> of the EME as in scope and the W3C and the proponents have been
> using this decision to deflect the obvious lack of consensus.

Your understanding is incorrect.

> I claim that same sanctity for the use case and requirements
> submitted in bug 21727.

You are welcome to produce an extension spec and attempt to build 
support around your additional use cases.

> Further, my understanding is that the W3C is attempting to design
> a system involving the Restricted Media CG that seeks to
> deflect any discussion of the validity of the use cases and
> requirements of the EME to a group that has no standing to
> decide on the validity of these issues within the HTML group.
> If this is to be understood then all use cases and requirements
> of the EME should be deferred to the RMCG and the HTML WG
> would have no standing to invalidate those in bug 21727.
>
> I am just calling for the W3C to apply the directions that it
> has made in a fair manner and with integrity.
>
>  > It indicates that it rejected the use case in this particular
>  > case.
>
>  > You may disagree with the conclusion and would like to escalate
>  > the issue but that doesn't prevent the Group from marking it as Invalid
>  > in the meantime.
>
> Well, then please apply the decision of the CfC and mark the EME
> specification as invalid.

I encourage you to read the decision:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html

In particular, the final paragraph.

>  > The CG was created specifically to consider the paired
>  > challenges of openness and access-restriction, in order to seek a
>  > solution that considers both today's business and technical realities
>  > and the long-term health of the Web. I don't see how your use case makes
>  > any progress on the considering "both today's business and technical
>  > realities and the long-term health of the Web". The CG doesn't get to
>  > pick the use cases and requirements on behalf of the Working Group
>  > however but the CG is certainly welcome to propose use cases and
>  > requirements to the Working Group.
>
> The matter has already been decided within the Working Group.

Incorrect.

> Sorry, your scheme to defer the dissenting views to the RMCG will
> not work - I for one reserve my right to have a say within the
> work of the Working Group.

You are welcome to produce specs that conform to additional requirements 
that are within scope.

> In conclusion, this matter has already been decided and you do not
> have the numbers.  Please accept the decision of the community
> and show some dignity.

Incorrect.  Again, I refer you to the final paragraph in the link above.

> cheers
> Fred

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 00:18:39 UTC