W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > February 2013

FW: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:07:46 +0000
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F1F807327@TK5EX14MBXC291.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
FYI.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:06 PM
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Cc: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) the following Encrypted Media Extensions document:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypt
> ed-media-fpwd.html
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Wednesday January 30, this resolution will carry.
>
> Considerations to note:
>
> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger patent policy review.
>
> - As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents.

This call for consensus does not pass.

The chairs found that there were two categories of objections.  The first was that this was not the type of work that those that expressed this objection felt belonged at the W3C.  Others clearly differed.  The second was that this work did not contain enough information to be implemented interoperably, and was not on a path to do so.

For the first objection, the co-chairs sought advice from W3C Management.  The following email is the result:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html

Based on this input, the chairs find that this work is in scope.  Should this situation change, we will revisit the decision at that time.

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.

Note that the W3C process requirements for a FPWD[2] are fairly low:

     Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the
     Working Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if
     it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.

Accordingly, when we re-evaluate the request to publish an FPWD, we will consider only concrete and specific objections that have been filed in the form of bugs. The determination will be based on whether there is a good faith effort to resolve such bugs, but with no requirement that all new or currently open bugs have been closed

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 20:08:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:32 UTC