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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
What a lazy rhetorical device.
There is no reason to expect the community to be “tolerant” and “kind” to an intolerant proposal.
Get off your high horse of neutrality, because it’s not neutral. Proposals like this will be treated like a hostile attack because that is what they are. If you’re unable to see that then that problem is on you not _everyone else_.
This is extremely similar to the same arguments leftists give of _not giving a platform to fascists_. Giving that platform is legitimizing them.
This proposal is being seen as a technological fascist attack on the web, and you’re getting that signal. Except you’re categorizing that signal as noise.