5 ms·

> I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both

> I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair." > If you're objecting to the goals of the proposal [1], it'd serve you better to outline which goals are objectionable and why Many technologists don't have the clout or sometimes the charisma to explain within this rigid framework you have presented why this proposal is such a bad idea. That doesn't mean their feedback should be dismissed outright. > It's important to actually read and understand the proposal before objecting to it. For example, WEI has nothing to do with ad-blockers or DRM But it is DRM because it can be used, in effect, like DRM. You are missing the point that most of the community sees this as DRM-like technology, with all of its warts, whether you agree with that conclusion or not. > At the end of the day, in the case of Chromium, your goal is not necessarily to convince the proposal's proponents, but the API owners Okay, so, in summary, your points are that the feedback you've read is (1) not yours to address but you are addressing anyway, (2) not valuable within your own value framework (??), and (3) that the opposing viewpoints are misplaced in commenting on the repo which holds the proposal? > I'd love to discuss this with y'all like professional adults. Can we do that? Sure, when do you intend to start? Suggesting that opposing viewpoints are "unprofessional" prima-facie doesn't seem like the best way to win hearts and minds. Edit: Yoav, I'd be happy to respond to you in good faith as I've done here once Hckrnews lets me post it.

noptd 3y ago
Yeah, the author has to resort to tone-policing because they have no good rebuttals for the criticism being received so they are trying to invalidate and dismiss said criticism due to its 'tone'. What a lazy rhetorical device.
yoavweiss_ 3y ago
> Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair." I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community). > But it is DRM because it can be used, in effect, like DRM. You are missing the point that most of the community sees this as DRM-like technology, with all of its warts, whether you agree with that conclusion or not. OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM?
- lozenge 3y ago
  There are 11 issues on the repo matching a search for "DRM". Please list all the comments with the word "DRM" you read, and justify any you skipped. Then we can write an explanation meeting your requirements. I hope you'll read that one!
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  Please listen to the feedback you have universally gotten from the community. Stop.
- Adverblessly 3y ago
  (Note that I'm not the parent) The first goal of the proposal is to > Allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device. That is, to give web servers the ability to Digitally restrict (or Manage) a user's Rights to access content on a device and software stack of their choice. Can you explain in what ways this is not DRM?
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  It's establishing whether I have the right to view or use this site, as determined by whether some far off entity such as a Google approves of my computer or not.
- sgammon 3y ago
  > I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community). You mean the repo which is closed for new issues, on which Google has shut down commentary, past the weekend deadline it promised for re-opening commentary? This is the open work process under examination? > OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM? I would be glad to take a crack at this, but smarter people have spent their whole lives advancing humankind's understanding on this topic. They should speak on it, not me. I have my own private suspicions about what they will say though.
  - sgammon 3y ago

noptd 3y ago

Yeah, the author has to resort to tone-policing because they have no good rebuttals for the criticism being received so they are trying to invalidate and dismiss said criticism due to its 'tone'. What a lazy rhetorical device.

yoavweiss_ 3y ago

> Nobody is missing this; you're defending this work. You can't both defend the work itself and place yourself outside of the process as a "chair." I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community). > But it is DRM because it can be used, in effect, like DRM. You are missing the point that most of the community sees this as DRM-like technology, with all of its warts, whether you agree with that conclusion or not. OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM?

lozenge 3y ago
There are 11 issues on the repo matching a search for "DRM". Please list all the comments with the word "DRM" you read, and justify any you skipped. Then we can write an explanation meeting your requirements. I hope you'll read that one!
gaganyaan 3y ago
Please listen to the feedback you have universally gotten from the community. Stop.
Adverblessly 3y ago
(Note that I'm not the parent) The first goal of the proposal is to > Allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device. That is, to give web servers the ability to Digitally restrict (or Manage) a user's Rights to access content on a device and software stack of their choice. Can you explain in what ways this is not DRM?
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
It's establishing whether I have the right to view or use this site, as determined by whether some far off entity such as a Google approves of my computer or not.
sgammon 3y ago
> I'm not defending the work. I'm defending the venue, to enable standard proposal work to happen in public (and get feedback from the community). You mean the repo which is closed for new issues, on which Google has shut down commentary, past the weekend deadline it promised for re-opening commentary? This is the open work process under examination? > OK, maybe I'm missing something then. Can you explain to me in what ways this is DRM? I would be glad to take a crack at this, but smarter people have spent their whole lives advancing humankind's understanding on this topic. They should speak on it, not me. I have my own private suspicions about what they will say though.
- sgammon 3y ago