Fred I am sorry to say this, but you starting to come over even more strangely than before. For example, you petition (or partition, as you did rather painfully to Tim) for the closure of the CG - an act which merely removes a place to discuss issues you claim you want to discuss - and then later say you could use the closure against the w3c as it would be an act of censure. When people do what you ask, you cannot then accuse them of malice towards you. This is fairly basic among rational people.
I know you have been asked this before, but please, if you want to have some effect, recognize the problems that are being addressed, be clear and specific what your problems are with the current direction, and suggest alternative ways ahead that you feel address those two problem sets better. To date, you have done none of these things, and so it should not be surprising that you are having negligible effect (on the deliverables, at least). Sent from my iPad > On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Fred Andrews <[email protected]> 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, 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 >
