See also: IRC log
<pkra> *hides in the shadows*
Garth: we look to have a critical mass
…Last Monday was a holiday in the states, so maybe that helped
…Minutes are in the agenda
…they looked ok to me
…any objections to minute approval?
…Silence being consent, let's note that they minutes are approved
Garth: Looking at irc, I'll call out some of the new-comers we are expecting
…Jonathan Hevenstone from Atypon/Wiley membership
…hope he is here and will be contributing shortly
…and Nick Brown from Ingram
Nick: yes, I am here
Garth: want to give us a brief introduction
Nick: I work with Ingram, specifically Vital Source
…work on our ereader applications
…we are huge proponents of EPUB
…work closely with Rick Johnson whom you know
Garth: welcome aboard
…And @ with Pearson
…she joined and sent regrets
…his company Atypon was acquired by Wiley
Jonathan: I just joined
…is there a question about the involvement we will have?
Garth: you don't have to divulge secrets; just give us an introduction about you
Jonathan: I was involved in IDPF when we were developing the first EPUB spec
…working with Publishing Dementions, later acquired by Jouve
…Atypon is a tech company acquired by Wiley in October
…we host about
…30 percent of world's journal articles
…in terms of current front list
…and will grow to 40 percent with Wiley
…online hosting, content development and monetization
…Some publishers have EPUB to download
…we don't provide solutions for viewing them
…we are launching a new in-browser, Readium based reader, to deliver journal articles in that format
…address light-way copyright and annotation
Garth: Welcome back into the fold
Jonathan: thanks, this is fun
Garth: I'll give Carley from Pearson a chance to say high; but she sent regrets
…I believe Bill McCoy is on the call to give us an update on the PBG
BillMcCoy: The Publishing Business Group is formed
<dauwhe> https://www.w3.org/community/publishingbg/
…if you are not sure if your org is eligible, just clicked the join link and we'll address it manually
…First Publishing BG meeting is 10:30am-2:30pm London time
…there is a list, but people are still arriving
…we have a special TPI program for eligible IDPF members
…we should start having email exchanges on the Publishing BG shortly
…the steering committee is active, which is the former IDPF board members
…ultimately the PBG will elect the steering committee
…Agenda is there
…Expect discussions about charter will take place on GitHub
<ivan> details on the meeting in London: https://www.w3.org/wiki/PublishingBG/meeting/2017-03-13#March_13.2C_2017_Kick-Off_Meeting
…there will be people in Publishing BG who are not part of this group, mainly for historical reasons
…to be as inclusive as possible, would be good if the charter discussions happened in GitHub
…Do you want more details?
Garth: any input as to how the Business Group
…which is expected to provide input to the charter of the WG
…how that process will go, and timing thereof?
BillMcCoy: Chartering of a WG at W3C has many steps, unlike the CG and BGs
…a WG has a number of more steps, including consent of all the W3C members
…we want to get that done as soon as possible, but we want to be inclusive to the whole publishing community
…a balancing act
…this group is ready to move on with the strawman draft charter
…there seems to be significant consensus
…but key factor is to get broader feedback from the community that has not been here for the past two years
…have the charter be attractive to the broader industry
…I don't think it will be that long
…this group has done an excellent job
…I hope the BG can get to a 'looks good to us'
…I'm an optimist
…hope we can get to this step quickly and get a new WG in place this spring, which is what I think everyone wants to happen
Leonard: Bill, do have any thoughts on how you see conflicts?
…you'd like to hope no bumps in the road
…but on off chance there is a conflict between BG and those who have been working already
…towards this effort, do you have a feeling on how those would be resolved?
BillMcCoy: we have chairs, self-nominated from among the steering committee
…those co-chairs are Paul Belfanti, Rick Johnson and Cristina Mussinelli
…so not a question of which group
…or one of people seeing it for the first time next week
…different perspectives
…from those who have been working on it v those who just arrived
…as you know, the draft charter has been sent to the W3C Advisory Committee
…we want to broaden the perspective
…process of consensus is magical
…but I'm confident for Paul, Rick, Cristina, Garth and Tzviya working with Ivan and me
…I hope we get better than rough consensus, but will be pleasantly surprised if we do
Garth: I'm even more of an optimist and will second that
…if no more commentary on business group or process stuff
Dave: We had some earlier details about 11:30- 2:30
…wiki says 10:30-2:30
+1
Karen: the wiki is correct
Garth: yes, 10:30am start
Bill: hope everyone can attend
<BillMcCoy> publishing business group home page: https://www.w3.org/community/publishingbg/
Garth: wold be good to publish a less drafty charter
…last week we had two action items jointly on Leonard and David's plate
…online offline and manifest
…chit chat on mailing list this morning
…David's comment
<BillMcCoy> march 13 kickoff meeting agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/PublishingBG/meeting/2017-03-13#March_13.2C_2017_Kick-Off_Meeting
…pull link to draft charter under section 2
…bullet 4 and 5
…the one talking about offline, second one talking about manifest
…I saw the email from David, and will be quiet
…and not propose language
…the current text in the draft charter
<ivan> current github issue on online/offline: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/issues/41
…says [reads]
…email from Dave this morning was let's stay the course and leave that alone
…I don't think that is in the camp Leonard is in
<BillMcCoy> side note that W3C is co-sponsoring the EPUB Summit Europe 2017 on march 8-9 in Brussels still time to register see https://www.edrlab.org/epub-summit-2017/
…not sure if you have synched on this, proposed language
Ivan: I see question update on irc
…at this moment if we can set a priority
…of the @draft
…I think we have to be in a position of publishing that as well as the ucr asap
…to make it a better document input to the charter process
…that is my priority
…taking into account all things Bill explained
…I am uneasy to touch the charter until the business group is up and running
…I would be uneasy to change things significantly on the charter
Garth: maybe an ignorant comment
…I thought the online/offline had been agreed to in the PWP document; is that untrue?
Ivan: It's untrue
…we had a discussion two weeks ago; nothing has changed in PWP document
Garth: I thought it was totally on the charter?
…and not the PWP document
Ivan: It started with some questions that Leonard asked about the PWP document
Leonard: it has gone back and forth
…some stuff copied one from the other document but it's not in synch
…I thought we were going to agree on language in charter and back it into PWP doc; but I don't care which way we go
Ivan: I thought it was the opposite; get the PWP text right and then moving that to the charter
…but I think it can lead to non-technical issues
Leonard: I would rather have the charter text better so that the BG is reading something this group is happy with
Garth: I think there is some possibility
…'that this looks good to us' from business group
…charter is more consumable than PWP and will get more consumption for that reason
…perhaps I neglected to ask you
…Leonard, is there language on the charter language that you and Dave agree upon?
Leonard: that was fine for me; I can completely live with what is there today
Garth: that sounds like a hallelujah
…I read and that is what it says
…so if Leonard and Dave are happy
…then let's go with what we have there, and maybe we can declare victory
…and I believe Dave is correct that we do match between charter and PWP
…don't want to be quiet for any further disagreement
…Let's note we have reached resolution in online and offline documents
…That brings us to the manifest discussion
Garth: the other one that Dave and Leonard were going to synch on
…again, let me read a few sentences from the draft charter [reads]
…there was discussion two weeks ago about @ and presentation
…or trim that paragraph ever so slightly
…any input
Dave: I apologize for not reaching out to Leonard to work on that language
<Leonard> Mea culpa from me too...
Garth: happy to open up for some discussion now
…on that
…my two cents worth is whether manifest is "M" or "m" as loose term
…needs to be something about sequence somewhere
…one can argue about sequence and presentation
…I believe that was Leonard's proposal to drop sequence and presentation
…I expect we'll dig into that when we have the WG going
Leonard: my issue remains
…we can talk about sequence and presentation in the context of metadata and manifest
…but constituent resources implies images and fonts and data that have nothing to do with sequence and presentation
…I would put a period after presentation
…and end after sequence and presentation…full stop
Dave: I'm fine with that, too
…manifest will need various information besides raw accounting of constituent resources
Leonard: Let me write something in irc
+1
<BillMcCoy> I just recommend that we do this all via github issues not via this meeting
Garth: I propose we take a 25 second break for that post to come in
<BillMcCoy> take it now and put it in as a github issue??
Garth: Appreciate Bill's comment, but I want to take it now
…and get it back into the draft
<Leonard> "The metadata and manifest will also incorporate information about the sequence and presentation of the content"
…ok, Bill
<BillMcCoy> so that draft changes come via github issues...
Leonard: take as is, or word smith ok
Ivan: Make it clear that this includes the fact that
…resource of publication [full stop] and then your phrase
Leonard: yes, that was implied
Garth: That looks fine to me
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
…This is great
Garth: Let's get that change into the charter
…and then we have both offline and Leonard or Ivan, who wants to do the charter change?
<Zakim> ivan, you wanted to practicalities
Ivan: I will do this change on the charter tomorrow morning my time
…and some minor organizational things
…and I'll check if same language is used on draft
…make sure they are both in synch
…eager to see these be as mature as possible
Garth: Great
…if we can not re-open the online/offline and manifest discussions until we get to charter review or the real WG
…Do we have an update from the Accessibility TF from the recharter update?
Avneesh: Yes, so we have defined the task further; it was posted to the mailing list
…we have not received all responses
…but we have received some and it looks like it is moving towards resolution
…some people traveling to CSUN
…may be why responses are slow
s/slow
Garth: You would get consensus in the TF and then propose language to the larger group?
Avneesh: yes, that is the plan
George: Avneesh and I have agreed on what we think is the right language
…Charles, Deborah, others, happy to have you chime in
…but want to make sure others have a chance to look at it
Garth: If that can be driven forward in next couple of days, and then put on agenda for a week from today
…or let us know we don't have to talk about; or as agenda, that would be awesome
Deborah: that should be fine
…conversations on email list this morning
…should not be a problem
…just have to make things shorter
Garth: Short is always good
…Ivan, I was going to ask him to talk logistics about getting these docs public
Ivan: essentially yes
…the changes we discussed earlier reflect consensus
…so I will put into the main branch tomorrow morning
<Leonard> +1
…but I would like to put the Accessibility into a separate pull request
…and not put that directly into the main branch
…put into a separate branch
…The other question is that
…the discussion we are having for the Accessibility is really relevant for the draft
…I think the draft is ok
…we are word smithing here to be appropriate, but not really appropriate for the draft
…shall I talk about practicalities?
Garth: Next agenda item is next steps, so yes, Ivan
Ivan: the charter we have discussed it will be there
…at this moment I know there are two open issues in the issue list
…which I propose this group not get into too much
…they are much more business rather than technical questions
…Bill McCoy can tell me if I am right or not
…one issue is around the exact position of WP v EPUB 4
…what do we mean by backward compatibility
…which I expect will be a larger discussion with BG and AC
…we should not touch that right now
…Other comment that came up
…comments on issue of DRM
…I welcome you to look at the few issues there
…again, I think this is more up the alley of the BG
…am I right, Bill?
Bill: not sure what the engagement will be, but I do agree the BG is the right place for the discussion
…since we don't have the BG rolling, it's more hypothetical
…I don't disagree with you
Garth: maybe I'm taking more happy pills than Bill on EPUB4 backward compatability
…it has somewhat petered out
…maybe we are close to a resolution on that
Ivan: I am less optimistic
…I think everyone is waiting
…one of people who started the discussion is Daniel Glazman, who realizes where this conversation will take place
Garth: we shall see
…Daniel is not shy about disagreeing with me
Ivan: agreed
Garth: Who else...
Ivan: I will go on with the other documents
…let's get Dave
Dave: Another question about the scope of the EPUB3 CG
…what branch will be acceptable
Ivan: to come back to the other two documents
…those two are ready to be published as drafts
…we had short discussion about whether they should be drafts or notes
…Dave said should not be a note
…I am lukewarm on both sides, just important to have them be published
…I will go through the documents, mainly editorially
…Respect comes up with a few things
…I will get both docs into a format that can be published right away and we should have a resolution to publihs
…and then I take care of it with the W3C web master
Garth: Dave?
…Leonard, go ahead
Leonard: I will add to tracker; but we have not discussed 3.2
…whether we leave them in the initial charter or not
…under potential rec track deliverables
…someone has a comment on whether we go down that path at all
ivan: the someone is me
Leonard: we don't want charter to go out with that editorial note; so do we leave or remove 3.2
Garth: my proposal that this is biting off more than we want to in this group, so we should remove, but open to other opinions
Leonard: I agree with you
... we should remove from charter, no active interest and we have enough
to do
<Rick_Johnson> +1 to remove for now
…we can always add work
Ivan: point is we cannot add to group just like that
…what we put into charter later requires rechartering
…at the moment the text stays the following deliverables may be...[reads]
…the goal was, it leaves the door open but makes it dependent on some incubation coming in
…with that, I would propose leaving it in
…it may not fly with W3M or whomever
…but at this moment I would be uneasy to take it out
…getting it in again may be much more difficult
Leonard: I would say the other way around
…well, if we take it out, we can do that work elsewhere
…not every piece of publications work has to be in a single WG
…we are in agreement on the main points
…if someone actually came with an incubation or proposal, let's start another WG
…they are not core to our goals; let them happen somewhere else
Ivan: In general, I would agree with you
…the problem is that the current set-up with IDPF members is that they can only join one WG
Leonard: But these things are completely new things, never discussed by the IDPF
Ivan: that is true; is it outside the interest?
<Garth> a?
Leonard: maybe but they should become involved and join as full members
Dave: seems to be some fragmentation
…to spin up new groups for them
…not have 70 different CSS WGs for example
BillMcCoy: This would be a great thing to discuss with the new PBG
…at end of the day we have to have an achievable WG charter
…but would not be terrible if scope is bigger than what is accomplished
…I can see both sides
…but I don't want to see a parallel working group
…for things that should be part of Publishing@W3C
…the spirit of the commitment is to participate in Publishing@W3C things
…and understood that it would be more than was at IDPF
…not fully in agreement with Leonard, but I am also not insisting that things in 3.2 stay
…will be logical
…sorry for mushy answer
Garth: I am in a similar mushy place
…no way we can get to PWP mission
…if the text is here, we may do this, I don't have a lot of religion one way or another
…whether we get too dinged as being too wishy-washy for charter
…or if concern of BG
Rick: mostly an observer to this
…I had said +1 in the thread and wanted to explain my thoughts
…we feel like we want to talk about this
…and if we keep it as a placeholder, it makes it easier to talk about it
…I think we are talking a bit in circles there
…if after we form, and we want to talk about, that is the level for discussion for the charter
…let's not confuse it by having a place there now
Garth: so your plus one is to remove for now
Rick: yes, remove for now, and if we want to talk about it, bring about it through harder process and talk about it afterward
George: I have my hand up
…if this is not in the charter and we want to move it into the discussion, is that all 'legal' in W3C?
Ivan: That is what I was saying, can be done later but only if we re-charter
Garth: is that true if we define these APIs as part of WP, does charter limit us?
Ivan: I think that would be pushing it
…I think we would be forced to make a new charter or recharter or create a new WG
…think about fact that we are talking about IPR commitments
…not seeing charter without those IPR commitments
…would not think about APIs, except for company like Google that has a lot of APIs
Garth: I cede to your wisdom
BillMcCoy: Maybe a more general statement about APIs
…currently sounds like we have concrete plans for two APIs
…maybe a more general statement
…without stating clearly what we want to do
Garth: I have little religion on this
…but want to get to another topic shortly
Ivan: I don't think what Bill is saying will fly
<BillMcCoy> I defer to Ivan on what will fly w/ AC
…knowing how AC is working these days
…we refer to the PWP draft; gives some sort of technical background
…which is now
…leading to the charter
…that PWP draft has nothing about APIs
…I am a little afraid it will not fly
…Listening to the reactions
…I am fine if we decide to take it out
…I am a little worried if there is really a need
…Maybe what Rick said, if there is really a need, then a rechartering of the group may be a good thing to do
…it would draw attention of other companies and participants to specific work
…maybe that is a good thing to do
…I am not bound to keeping it
Garth: I am personally happy taking it out under that wisdom
…i don't see us wanting to think about it impacting our work on WP and the P portion thereof
…are there others on the call who disagree with taking it out for now with any verve?
…Let's count that as consensus and remove 3.2 for now
…Lastly
…ack Ivan
[previou]
<BillMcCoy> again I recommend removing it via github issue so the edit history is clear to both AC reps who've received advance notice and new PBG members
Garth: last on the agenda
…proposed F2F for this group in NYC following BEA
…not too many people want to participate in the F2F
…realistically the same folks from BEA
…and not stay over the weekend
…Friday/Saturday is equally problematic for our Jewish contingent
…result from poll thus far
…and encourage others to fill out
…we have ten in person and five remote interested
…Tzviya seems to be willing to attend
…i think we should stay the course with this schedule
…but encourage other people to flesh it out
…Ivan and I will be on an agenda planning call next week
…Let's get together this following Monday
George: the 5th and 6th?
Garth: yes
…let's talk again next Monday
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon