Re: EME FPWD CfC is closed

On 02/11/2013 08:53 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> Yes, but there appear to be plans for another CfC soon
> and this is the single most important decision in the history of the
> web so I for one welcome discussion to continue.  The issue of DRM
> goes way beyond just 'media' - a CDM could well implement an
> entire HTML rendering engine.  I do not support your attempts
> to quash discussion and or to sideline it into another mailing list.

W3C Member level discussions typically happen in other locations.  One 
such ___location is the Advisory Council.  If you sincerely want to effect 
change at the W3C level, public-html-admin is not the place to have that 
discussion.

We are not attempting to quash discussion or sideline it -- to the 
contrary we are trying to get the discussion to occur where it has the 
participation of all the stakeholders and can be the most effective.

> Btw: what is Apple's official position regarding this CfC?  I feel
> silly asking, but do not recall anyone from Apple stating that
> Apple supports the CfC.

We did not seek member company positions on this CfC.

> cheers
> Fred

- Sam Ruby

>  > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:40:32 -0500
>  > From: rubys@intertwingly.net
>  > To: public-html-admin@w3.org
>  > Subject: EME FPWD CfC is closed
>  >
>  > On 02/11/2013 01:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>  > >
>  > > It's fine to continue discussion of the bug proposal in email,
> though it
>  > > should probably be on a technical list rather than on
> public-html-admin.
>  > > I would recommend a new thread on public-html-media for email
>  > > discussion. I think it's usually a good idea to provide more info
>  > > pre-emptively (either in a bug or in email) but it's also ok to wait to
>  > > see what questions are actually asked.
>  >
>  > Reposting Maciej's comment with a new subject line for visibility.
>  >
>  > > Regards,
>  > > Maciej
>  >
>  > - Sam Ruby
>  >
>  >

Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 14:46:30 UTC