Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

+1


2014/1/10 Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>

>
> > From: stsil@manurevah.com
> > Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this
> community group
> >
> > On 2014/01/07 16:08, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> > > Fred Andrews:
> > >> In the absence of anyone else stepping forward, I nominate
> > >> for position of Chair and seek a mandate to close this group.
> > >
> > > -1
> >
> >
> > I don't know if I get what this would really imply or do to help.
>
> I believe we need to move forward assuming that the EME will advance and
> that testing a change of chair and testing the closure of this group is the
> best outcome for those in dispute with Tim and the W3C.
>
> I understand some here still hold hope that Tim and the W3C will change
> their position, but the W3C has already decided to recharter the HTML WG to
> include content protection including DRM and thus have endorsed DRM as
> consistent with the principles of the web.  There are further examples in
> which Tim has given his opinion that DRM is consistent with the principles
> of the web.  Tim has been partitioned by many respected people in the web
> ecosystem and he has made his decision.
>
> A web extension adding DRM support, that has a semblance of being
> consistent with the principles of the web, and the semblance of being the
> product of an open process that was well represented and agreed upon, would
> be very damaging to the interests of those in dispute with Tim and the W3C
> in this matter.  Conversely it would be very valuable to the pro-DRM
> interests and I believe this is the key reasons that the EME is being
> pursued here.   This community group has been made part of the
> 'conversation' by Tim and the W3C and I believe it is being used to support
> their rhetoric and damage our interests.
>
> If we succeed with a change of chair then we can at least control the
> rhetoric and try to minimize the damage.  People who dispute that the
> principles of the web support DRM are being redirected here and I believe
> it is misleading for them to come to a forum discussing alternative content
> protection proposals that assume that the principles of the web are
> consistent with DRM, which is the opinion of our current chair Wendy.  Tim
> and the HTML WG have already redirected the conversation here - it is
> already poisoned for us.  Let's close it and let it remain a historical
> reminder of their strategies.
>
> Even if we lose, we win, because the W3C will have been forced to make a
> decision to censure and control the community group, a fact that could be
> used against them.
>
> We can start a new group and make a fresh start exploring alternative
> approaches such as water marking, or using web intents to redirect DRM
> content to an alternative device, and we can control the scope of
> discussion to poison it from being used by Tim and the W3C to support their
> position on the principles of the web which we dispute.
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>