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

Obviously I support keeping the web open to feature additions and I don't want to censure any discussion of features.

However, DRM is not a typical 'feature'.  It has the characteristic of blocking other features under the threat of persecution.  Let's call it a mis-feature.  I know some members of this group object to even adding a 'do-not-copy' flag - it could legally constrain browser vendors.  There is a class of 'misfeatures' that we could define.

How can a group open to the discussion of features also be open to mis-features that taint all discussions and still all get along?  I suggest we will need to exclude the mis-features, that we will need to exclude DRM, in the web from the group.  The proponents of mis-features might retort that we are hypocrites censuring their 'features'[sic] when we espouse open discussion.   What other options are there?   Help me out here?

Note 'discussion' is being used to include preparing and promoting specs and distributing user agents etc.  It would have been clearer to separate 'discussion' from promoting specific paths but this is the way Tim has chosen to frame the work of the web ecosystem.

The issue at hand is not the development of technical solutions to problems, or the search for a technically 'better' solution.  The solution space has been confined to supporting client side restrictions on use by the publishers, and to being part of the web by Tim and the W3C, and the people being redirected here seek solutions in which the discussion of web features is still open (excludes mis-features) and in which DRM is not part of the web - the solution space is empty.

The work on the EME proceeds - I suggest that a problem that the DRM-Web proponents are working on includes the plausible reconstruction of the web to be compatible with DRM, a political problem, and that keeping this group open as-is advances their interests and not the interests of many people being redirected here.

So what ideas do you have to help us all get along in our open discussion that is the web ecosystem?

cheers
Fred

> From: karl@la-grange.net
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:45:42 +0900
> CC: stsil@manurevah.com; public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> To: fredandw@live.com
> Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this   community   group
> 
> 
> Le 10 janv. 2014 à 10:29, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> a écrit :
> > We can start a new group
> 
> No need.
> 
> > and make a fresh start exploring alternative approaches such as water marking, or using web intents to redirect DRM content to an alternative device,
> 
> Provoke change by positive discussions and technical solutions. Do propose stuff please. Write document explaining how it is working. Create implementations. Experimentations. 1 million yes.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Censorship is never a good start. The discussion _is_ open. The proof is that nobody censored you, even being opposed myself to DRM, I find, personally, your emails not helping at all with finding better alternatives.
> 
> -- 
> Karl Dubost 🐄
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

> 
>