- From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:41:16 +0000
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- CC: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU179-W25F8F31472C4523109216CAA010@phx.gbl>
Sorry, I do not consider Tim's actions as 'taking no position on the EME spec.'.
Q. Tim is responsible for the exclusive membership of the working group?
Q. The membership has a particular focus on DRM for content protection?
Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus to advance the EME spec?
Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus on the content of the EME spec?
Q. Tim was responsible for advancing the EME specification even though it lacks any consensus from the web community?
Q. Tim is responsible for advancing the EME in parallel to more open specifications, and for advancing it parallel to specifications adding positive features in contrast to the EME's anti-feature?
Q. When I attempted to add a 'save as' feature to the EME spec, Tim dictated that his select group could disregard this feature?
Q. Tim has told others to take their work elsewhere?
Q. Tim has told others to prepare an alternative spec?
Q. Tim has supported the HTML WG chairs in their handling of the EME and in their claims that a good faith effort was made to address issues reported in bugs while threatening those wanting to discuss this matter?
Q. Tim created this community group and directed those who do not agree with the direction of his select group to discuss the matter here?
Q. This community group has no standing to vote on the content of the EME spec?
Q. Tim has dictated that 'content protection' is in scope for the HTML WG?
Q. Tim uses the statement that 'content protection' is in scope as the basis for advancing the EME spec?
Q. Tim has not defined 'content protection'.
Q. The EME is an essential component of the DRM system?
Q. Tim states that the W3C is not 'embracing' DRM?
Q. Tim continues to state he has taken no position on the EME spec.?
cheers
Fred
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:14:30 -0400
From: jeff@w3.org
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: watsonm@netflix.com; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Subject: 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).
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 01:41:43 UTC