RE: EME Bugs filed after CfC decision and before Feb 15

For the record I will note that the state of these bugs is a largely
the result of the lone actions of a subgroup and that there was
no consensus on the actions taken.  I stopped reopening the
bugs because this subgroup kept acting in bad faith to prevent
the work proceeding and marking the bugs closed.  In may
cases this subgroup just refused to undertake the work or
applied their subjective option on the matters.  Even bugs
with work to clarify the use cases, requirements, and
definitions, were closed in bad faith.  This subgroup even
called for others to take their work elsewhere showing
a complete contempt for the consensus process.

Further, I would note that this sub group made no formal
objection to the lack of consensus.  The state of most of
these bugs remains disputed.  The state of the EME remains
disputed and unresolved.  The current editors draft is not
the real EME, just a publication of this subgroup.

Given that there is no consensus on the content of the
EME, the push by the Chairs to proceed with the CfC
appears to be an act of bad faith and raises confidence
concerns.

Further I dispute the judgement of the Chairs in narrowing
the terms under which the next CfC will be assessed.
The W3C made some declaration that the work of the EME
was in scope, by the EME does not even define the use
cases and requirements in an objective manner so this
directive is little more than an indication to keep working
on the draft and to build more consensus.   The direction
set by the Chairs appears biased towards the goals of
their organizations at the expense of the wider interests
of the group.  Given their conflict of interest the Chairs
should have abstained from decision making in this
matters.  I am left with little confidence in the Chairs.

cheers
Fred

From: Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:55:39 +0000
Subject: EME Bugs filed after CfC decision and before Feb 15