A few clarifications:
* I am not a contributor to the repo, and stepped in as chair on the repo after writing this, to help the engineers contributing to it deal with clear spam & abuse cases. I wrote this post with WEI in mind, but nothing about it is specific to this proposal, and could've been applied to multiple past proposals (and probably future ones), either from Google or from other standards participants.
* Political/ecosystem arguments are technical arguments. See https://blog.yoav.ws/posts/web_platform_change_you_do_not_li...
* If you're objecting to the goals of the proposal [1], it'd serve you better to outline which goals are objectionable and why. Mozilla folks did a good job at articulating that in https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852#is...
A couple of things I should've included in that post and didn't:
* 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 (in the sense that the content itself is not restricted, unlike EME). It does have real eco-system risks that the proposal would need to address before moving forward. Objecting to the latter makes sense. Objecting to the former is easy to dismiss as a misunderstanding.
* 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 [2], many of whom are not Google employees.
[1] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2] https://blog.chromium.org/2019/11/intent-to-explain-demystif...
P.S. I'd love to discuss this with y'all like professional adults. Can we do that?
Why would anyone with legitimate concerns for unforseen consequences which would occur if the proposal or any descendants of it to turn to a standard would want to be constructive about it? Particularly considering the concern if they want to stop it on the tracks?
Why would you not like to get the legal related feedback, don't the legalities dictate technical constraints? Or do you think this would go on with or without being in the legal?
A typical workflow for standard proposals is: personal repo => incubation venue => official working group
This proposal is so early stage that it hasn't passed the "personal repo" phase just yet.
> Why would anyone with legitimate concerns for unforseen consequences which would occur if the proposal or any descendants of it to turn to a standard would want to be constructive about it? Particularly considering the concern if they want to stop it on the tracks?
"being constructive" doesn't mean being supportive. If the goal is objectionable and you want the work to stop, articulating why it's objectionable is your best bet at getting what you want.
> Why would you not like to get the legal related feedback, don't the legalities dictate technical constraints? Or do you think this would go on with or without being in the legal?
Actual legal concerns obviously get addressed (and doing that goes through legal counsels). But throwing "legal words" into feedback significantly increases the friction of answering it, without increasing its weight or validity. That can decrease the chances of it getting addressed.
This proposal is so early stage that it hasn't passed the "personal repo"
phase just yet.