Re: Trust

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, we see their statements claiming that they have 'not taken a
> position'.
>
> We also see their actions.  Tim has personally dictated that the EME
> advance, and has dictated the form of the spec that has advanced.  The EME
> is not a product of an open process, but a spec dictated by a narrow select
> group.  The EME is Tim's specification, not the open webs specification.
>
> Sorry I do not consider this 'taking no position'.
>
> Stop claiming that the EME being advanced has any legitimacy as an open
> standard.
>

Well, my point was that right now it actually doesn't have much legitimacy
- and noone is claiming it does - because it's at such an early stage of
the process.

I'm not sure how you define "the open webs specification", other than a
specification that has been through (all of) the W3C process. I agree that
EME is not that - it's just a Working Draft,

...Mark



>
> cheers
> Fred
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:15:04 -0700
> From: watsonm@netflix.com
> To: pdm@zamazal.org
> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Trust
>
>
>
> I do feel bound to point out what Jeff and the staff have repeatedly said
> which is the W3C has not taken a position on whether EME should be approved
> or not. The topic is in scope (and, btw, it's always a big ask to suggest
> that a topic isn't even *discussed*), but that doesn't mean we will find an
> acceptable solution. The much more significant decision will be whether to
> approve the EME specification. At this point W3C will have to decide
> whether the issues raised against the specification have been sufficiently
> addressed. Since I expect there is likely to be a Formal Objection to any
> approval by the Working Group then it will be the director who decides on
> this (IIUC).
>
>
>