Re: Trust

On 10/18/2013 10:57 AM, Fred Andrews 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.

Tim has stated that content protection is "in scope" for the HTML 
working group.  He has not taken any position on the EME spec.

>
> Sorry I do not consider this 'taking no position'.
>
> Stop claiming that the EME being advanced has any legitimacy as an 
> open standard.
>
> 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).
>