On 10/20/2013 9:41 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
Sorry, I do not consider Tim's actions as 'taking no position on the
EME spec.'.
There are several statements or questions which I think need
clarification/correction. I'm contributing my best effort to set the
record straight.
Q. Tim is responsible for the exclusive membership of the working group?
No. Members join at will. Invited experts can also participate in the
technical dialog.
Q. The membership has a particular focus on DRM for content protection?
It is true that the current EME draft has an assumption about an
underlying DRM system.
Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus to advance the EME
spec?
A consensus is required to advance the spec to Last Call. The Working
Group has not reached that point and may not ever reach that point.
Q. Tim has been informed that there is no consensus on the content of
the EME spec?
I don't understand this question. The EME spec is under development.
Q. Tim was responsible for advancing the EME specification even though
it lacks any consensus from the web community?
Tim was responsible to declaring "content protection" in scope. The
Working Group determined that it was timely to publish the First Public
Working Draft. That early status can take place despite Issues being
raised against the spec.
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?
I don't understand the question. The EME spec was brought forward by
several people in the working group; not by Tim. I'm not aware of
proposals which have "more open specifications" that have been proposed.
Q. When I attempted to add a 'save as' feature to the EME spec, Tim
dictated that his select group could disregard this feature?
No, I don't think Tim said anything about this feature.
Q. Tim has told others to take their work elsewhere?
No.
Q. Tim has told others to prepare an alternative spec?
Back in May, in my blog posting, I welcomed alternate proposals.
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?
In W3C process, there is no reason for Tim to be involved until Last Call.
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?
I believe Wendy created the community group. We all directed those who
would like to discuss issues here. We also directed folks with
different proposals for content protection to bring them to the HTML WG.
Q. This community group has no standing to vote on the content of the
EME spec?
Correct.
Q. Tim has dictated that 'content protection' is in scope for the HTML WG?
Correct.
Q. Tim uses the statement that 'content protection' is in scope as the
basis for advancing the EME spec?
I think it would be fair to say that the WG used the statement to
advance EME to First Public Working Draft.
Q. Tim has not defined 'content protection'.
I think it is fair to say that noone has rigorously defined it, although
it has been discussed a fair bit on this list.
Q. The EME is an essential component of the DRM system?
This point is debated. It is certainly possible to build a DRM system
without a standard API for it.
Q. Tim states that the W3C is not 'embracing' DRM?
Q. Tim continues to state he has taken no position on the EME spec.?
Yes.
cheers
Fred
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:14:30 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
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).
