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

Hi Fred,

The accusations of bad faith and generally negative tone of this email are not in line with the HTML WG Discussion Guidelines <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>. Repeating the same points over and over ("filibustering") is also in violation of the guidelines.

Please note that further violations of the guidelines may result in a time out from HTML WG mailing lists or even removal from the Working Group.

Thanks,
Maciej


On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> When there were objections to the first FPWD CfC for EME the Chairs issued a email about the lack of consensus:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html
> that requested:
>  
> “Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the
> candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented
> interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has
> lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear
> and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media
> Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is
> complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to
> proceed with these bugs.”
>  
> At several Feb EME Media TF meetings we processed the bugs that were filed after the FPWD CfC and before Feb 15.  I have recorded below how the Editors and TF processed these bugs and notes there current status.  I am hoping that this record will help us process this at the current HTML WG F2F meeting.
>  
> EME Bugs filed after CfC and before Feb 15:
>  
> 1) Bug 20944 EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop, and can be different per-user/device.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
> Status: OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug.
>  
> 2) Bug 20960 EME is not limited to video.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
> Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960#c12
>  
> 3) Bug 20961 EME depends on privileged access to the users computer which is not technically available.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961
> Status: RESOVLED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c8
>  
> 4) Bug 20962 EME depends on patented technology.
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962  
>  Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962#c4
>  
> 5) Bug 20963 EME is technically incomplete
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963
> Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO and then REOPENED with no new information
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963#c14
>  
> 6) Bug 20964 EME depends on servers with a finite life.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964
> Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964#c28
>  
> 7) Bug 20965 EME results in a loss of control over security and privacy.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965  
> Status: OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug and then RE-OPENED
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965#c29
>  
> 8) Bug 20966 EME design trivializes the demanded loss of control of security and privacy demanded.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20966
> Status: Open and item added to SOTD to describe this bug and then RE-OPENED
> OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug
>  
> 9) Bug 20967 EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
> Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967#c5
>  
> 10) Bug 20968 EME depends on legal sanctions to succeed and this is not a matter that can be addressed here.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
> Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968#c5
>  
> 11) Bug 20978 Just an API for encouraging the use of proprietary plugins
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20978
> Status: RESOLVES WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20978#c2
>  
> 12) Bug 20992 EME should define or reference a platform-independent VM in which CDMs will run
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20992
> Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 20944
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20992#c3
>  
> 13) Bug 21016 Please split Clear Key into a separate optional specification
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016  
> Status: RESOLVED LATER
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016#c2
>  
> /paulc
>  
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329