> From: [email protected]
> 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
