Re: W3C Director's Blog on EME

To my knowledge, the W3C is not a company, but a nonprofit
standards-development consortium hosted by three universities.

I'd welcome corrections on this, but the distinction makes a difference
inasmuch as presiding over a consortium is a matter of forging consensus
among the members, while being in charge of a company is about serving
one's shareholders and corporate charter.

Cory

On 03/09/2017 07:08 AM, Lukas E wrote:
> In my opinion, I am sure, the director is willing to listen to any
> member. Obviously he is busy so he cannot answer immediately. 
> And also the director should have the right to engage to any dialog
> within his company.
> 
> 
> Dne 9. 3. 2017 3:46 PM napsal uživatel "Philippe Le Hégaret" <plh@w3.org
> <mailto:plh@w3.org>>:
> 
>     On 3/9/2017 9:13 AM, Cory Doctorow wrote:
> 
>         Thanks, Philippe, but that doesn't really answer the question.
> 
>         There's a poll pending on the publication of EME. There is
>         significant
>         controversy over this -- and it's mounting. There is an absolute
>         certainty that the poll will not have anything like consensus,
>         meaning
>         that Tim will have the final say.
> 
> 
>     Correct.
> 
> 
>         Tim just published an op-ed that appears to prefigure the outcome of
>         that poll, which has not taken place (and which is long overdue
>         at this
>         point).
> 
>         What should the members make of this situation? Is Tim still
>         willing to
>         listen to his members, or should we assume that regardless of
>         the poll's
>         outcome, he's already made up his mind? Because it's very hard
>         to read
>         it otherwise.
> 
> 
>     He is still willing to listen to his members at this time. I do not
>     believe that we have the full picture of the state of the
>     membership. As you pointed out, we will not have consensus. Again, I
>     do not believe anyone would want the Director to stop engaging in
>     the dialog.
> 
> 
>         I'm disappointed that it took 11 days to come up with this very
>         cursory
>         statement from the W3C.
> 
> 
>     Sorry, but there are several pending questions around the EME
>     specification and we're trying to go through them. I'm sure that
>     several of our Members are eager to us to move the specification
>     forward, ie start the poll. We published the security disclosure
>     best practices last week and we're checking some facts around state
>     of implementations this week.
> 
> 
>         Also, can you clarify the confidential status of poll outcomes?
>         I know
>         that some of the 23 members who opposed charter renewal waived their
>         right to confidentiality to me, and I published a list of those
>         members,
>         but some did not, and I was careful not to disclose totals
>         because I had
>         been previously warned that even oblique mentions of poll
>         outcomes were
>         covered by member confidentiality and could not be mentioned on
>         public
>         lists like this one (in that case, I merely disclosed an approximate
>         *proportion* of votes in the poll, and was censured for breaching
>         confidentiality).
> 
>         Are poll numbers disclosable now?
> 
> 
>     The state hasn't changed. I chose to disclose the numbers of
>     objections to make it clear of the importance of the Director to
>     engage in the dialog. As you pointed out, that number probably
>     changed in the recent months anyway.
> 
>     Philippe
> 
> 
--