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

On 1/9/2014 8:29 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> > 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,

I doubt that anyone would object to exploring these alternatives in the 
current group.  I, for one, have been asking for that for a long time.

> 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
>