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