Date: 2017-11-17
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Present: Tzviya Siegman, Bill McCoy, Dave Cramer, Avneesh Singh, Rachel Comerford, Ivan Herman, Luc Audrain, Bill Kasdorf, Cristina Mussinelli, Michael Baker, Liisa McCloy-Kelley, Paul Belfanti, Garth Conboy, Graham Bell, Jun-ichi Yoshii, Daihei Shiohama
Regrets:
Guests:
Chair: Paul Belfanti
Scribe(s): Dave Cramer
Paul Belfanti: the goal is to figure out what the BG and
the SC should be doing
… one issue is that the transitional publishing members are going to time
out
… lots of things came up on email–fundraising, resources for epubcheck,
etc
Garth Conboy: the list was a good starting point
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: liisa mccloy-kelley present+
Bill Kasdorf: I believe that we need owners for issues
… there’s a lot of stuff on the list. it’s daunting.
Paul Belfanti: agreed
Luc Audrain: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpw0KA9StAnWZAaIMqnITmdSOchIZeQIvphX5AmAulg/edit
Luc Audrain: Looks i got it
Paul Belfanti: we get a lot of items listed, but we need to prioritize
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpw0KA9StAnWZAaIMqnITmdSOchIZeQIvphX5AmAulg/edit
Cristina Mussinelli: as I discussed at TPAC
… we started the idea of entering w3c with a wider goal
… we wanted to define a technical spec, which is handled by PWG
… but since we’re the business group, we need a wider point of view
… if we just focus on spec, there’s no advantage to be in w3c
… there are lots of areas of possible interest for BG
… things like payment, social, etc
… that can be interesting even to publishers who aren’t producing digital
content
… we need to focus on the non-technical things
… and we need fewer goals–three or four
Paul Belfanti: that’s a good point
Tzviya Siegman: +1 Cristina
Paul Belfanti: the opportunity for wider exposure to web
technologies
… from a business perspective
Cristina Mussinelli: I think it’s in scope with the charter of the group
Bill Kasdorf: this came up in discussion after pub
summit
… there was a positive reaction to the possibility of joining the BG to
learn about things like payment
Cristina Mussinelli: one point of the mission is [inaudible]
Paul Belfanti: yes, this is in scope
Avneesh Singh: there’s lots of overlap with tech work,
like media overlays and best practice
… maybe chairs of CG can provide reporting
… from strategic point of view, should we look at a higher level, look at
goals of task force?
… for example, we need fundraising for epubcheck, why don’t we have
generic fundraising?
… why not have task force for intelligence, looking at new innovation
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to suggestion that we have a fundraising task force and higher level task forces
Avneesh Singh: what we have right now is good, but keep at higher/strategic level
Luc Audrain: I agree with what Avneesh
Luc Audrain: there’s a communication question with the
browser folks
… it’s also about business…. we have to explain to publishers how business
will work with the new standards
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I agree with Luc that it’s not
clear that the work of the PWG has a tie to publishing business
… I wanted to comment on what Cristina said
Graham Bell: +1 to Luc
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I don’t think people will join the
BG just to learn about what w3c does
… it’s a lot of money, and a steep on-ramp
… we need to be clearer about how this stuff affects their business
Cristina Mussinelli: +1
Luc Audrain: +1
Bill McCoy: we should look at our charter
… we should tie the activities we want to pursue to the charter
… or else change the charter
… we want to create value for the publishing industry, and be a conduit
for feedback
… or maybe there’s a third category
… we shouldn’t focus too much on the word business
… could be ecosystem or industry
… if it isn’t a spec, it might be in charter for this group
Luc Audrain: In the BG charter « that the interests of the publishing industry are appropriately reflected in such publishing activity work » !
Bill McCoy: this group should be look at the mission
… we need to provide a compelling value proposition (CVP?)
… there’s a ton of stuff all over w3c on security privacy payments i18n
that’s important
Paul Belfanti: I would say that there’s a clear business
motivation behind epubcheck is robust, for example
… but we need a clear mapping to business priorities
Bill McCoy: but things like libraries have motivations, and that’s not really a for-profit business
Cristina Mussinelli: reading again the charter, we still have DPUB, which doesn’t exist
Paul Belfanti: DPIG, not DPUB
Bill McCoy: the plan was always that DPUB would wind down
Bill Kasdorf: I’m hearing that the mission of the BG has
two directions
… part of the mission is communicating needs of industry to w3c
… the other part is communicating the work of w3c to the industry
Paul Belfanti: I think we have consensus on how we want
to move forward
… we can review the list and prioritize
Tzviya Siegman: //www.w3.org/blog/wp-admin/post.php?post=16530&action=edit
Bill McCoy: +1 to Cristina suggestion to revised charter
Cristina Mussinelli: another thing we can do is to revise the charter, add some more specific things, make it more aligned with what we are discussing now
Paul Belfanti: you’re suggesting we review the charter, and revise if needed and use that as guidance to review the list?
Cristina Mussinelli: yes
Bill McCoy: note that Steering Committee can take any action that the BG can take but it might be advisable to propose a charter change and as BG as a whole to approve such revision (perhaps along with asking their approval of election timing/process details)
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: PBG Charter: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/PublishingBGcharter
Paul Belfanti: we can do this in parallel
Luc Audrain: I don’t see why we have to update the
charter
… it’s true that the IG doesn’t exist any more, etc.
… but the mission is explained
… we can cope with this charter as it is, because the mission doesn’t
change
… it’s a complex process to change a charter
Avneesh Singh: there is overhead to update the charter,
but let’s go through issues. Are we ok with role of SC?
… let’s move on and explore.
Luc Audrain: +1
Cristina Mussinelli: Understood
Avneesh Singh: and then make decision about charter. there’s a cost-benefit ratio.
Ivan Herman: without taking sides, this is not a WG, or an IG, so there is not much process around changing a charter. it’s just editing the text. It’s not a big deal.
Ivan Herman: there was no AC review of the charter
… we made it for ourselves
Bill Kasdorf: from a practical point of view, we have urgency on elections, the makeup of the steering committee, and the role of w3c staff
Paul Belfanti: maybe we should talk about the role of
the SC
… I’m having a hard time distinguishing the SC vs the chairs committee
… and the BG itself
… it seems there’s more there than we need
… and it adds meetings
… making it harder to focus
Bill Kasdorf: I only found out about the chairs committee by accident and I don’t know who’s on it–just the 3 chairs?
Bill McCoy: historical perspective… the SC was a
negotiated item, to make sure that post-combination, that former IDPF
board members could have involvment
… and to providee management oversight to w3c team
… that this smaller group could act like the idpf board
… we didn’t envision that we’d have 3 co-chairs of the BG
… a 14-person SC is a bit unwieldy
… now we have the WG and the CG, so it’s fair to revisit what the SC
should be
… it was a transitional thing
… or we could keep it for a year, and wind down with the TPI
… there’s not an analogue with other w3c groups
… we don’t want to make the bg less active
Garth Conboy: there’s the SC, there’s the co-chairs of the BG, and the chairs committee
Paul Belfanti: it’s just a meeting of the chairs of all the groups
Paul Belfanti: just an opportunity for chairs to compare
notes
… it creates a lot of overlap
Garth Conboy: I found it confusing
Luc Audrain: do we need the steering committee?
Paul Belfanti: the answer may be no, but we need to
think it through in terms of timing
… we need a more simplified system
Luc Audrain: it may be confusing to have the SC and the BG,
Bill Kasdorf: perspective from another org that’s
reorganizing
… we moved to a role-based smaller group, not elected
… that would argue for the chair’s group being the executive group of the
BG
… the chairs of WG,CG,BG
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I get your point that there are a
lot of calls
… it’s more an issue for the chairs group than the SC
… we’ve not had organization as a SC
… and it worries me to hand over the BG to the WG and CG. The WG and CG
need to focus on their own work.
… the BG needs to focus on what’s unique here.
… I still think we need a SC to push that forward
Bill McCoy: +1 - Liisa’s argument seems pretty compelling to me…
Garth Conboy: +1
Avneesh Singh: for example, for role of SC
… wai has steering committee to raise fund
… our SC could be smaller, and have a focus
… there are a number of task forces
… we need to define role of SC, and it should be smaller
… and what about task force chairs?
Cristina Mussinelli: 2 questions. for Bill K
… when you talk about role-based, instead of elected, are they people
outside organization?
… the 2nd question, about task force chair, what do you mean?
… is it the same people organizing themselves for different goals?
Bill Kasdorf: I was just pointing out a different
strategy for who composes the leadership group
… we want the BG to grow
… an organization like that does need a small group to keep things on
track
… one strategy is to elect, one is to select via their roles (as chairs,
task force leaders, etc)
… that the current sc is IDPF board members is logical and convenient
Bill Kasdorf: I’m concerned that the IDPF board was so epub and book focused
Bill Kasdorf: we want educational pubishers, libraries, etc
Cristina Mussinelli: thank you
Bill McCoy: avneesh mentioned wai SC, I think it’s an
antipattern
… it’s dysfunctional
… if we’re going to have elections, we must know the role of the SC
Garth Conboy: +1
Bill McCoy: our deadline is squishy; elections “around”
the end of the year. We could even start after the new year
… and we can amend the charter
… we don’t need to rush
… and I’ll be away the next two weeks
Tzviya Siegman: we’re spending a lot of time talking
about how the SC should look, not what it should do
… we should make firm decisions about what the groups should do, that
would make it easier to decide the shape of the groups
Paul Belfanti: can we have that conversation today?
Bill McCoy: -1 to trying to decide in new few minutes
Bill Kasdorf: what’s wrong with the charter? I thought it was good
Cristina Mussinelli: nothing wrong may be more details
Paul Belfanti: we’re just saying we want to review, now that it’s a year later
Tzviya Siegman: i think the charter is too vague for action items
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to BIllM saying we shouldn’t try to decide in the next few minutes
Bill Kasdorf: I thought we already knew what we were doing, because it’s in the charter
Garth Conboy: the charter is broad but good, but I don’t
think we’ve implemented it
… the discussion at TPAC was, we would do better with more staff support
… Ivan has a near full time job on PWG
… BillM perhaps should have .5 FTE on staff support of PBG
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to more BillM support for PBG
Cristina Mussinelli: +1 on more staff support
Tzviya Siegman: +1 to garth
Garth Conboy: perhaps somewhat different from the hands-off approach of the last six months
Paul Belfanti: yes, we do need that support
Bill Kasdorf: +1
Paul Belfanti: if we define what the SC and BG should be
doing, defining those roles is the work that needs to be done
… then we check to see if it falls within the charter
… BillM, you sent a message about being willing to increase your role.
Bill McCoy: you already did it.
… I was hoping that, according to w3c norms of member-driven groups, the
group would self-manage
… I think I erred too far on the other side
Bill Kasdorf: we are in the age of self-driving cars… .
Bill McCoy: I’m committed to doing more
… the BG being successful is a critical part of this. we need to engage
the broader ecosystem
… I think I can be helpful and do more
… that’s another Q, who wants to be chairs, esp. if Rick J will no longer
be in that role
Paul Belfanti: that makes sense
… one reason I’m a co-chair, when we were in London, I volunteered. I’m
open to other people wanting to take the lead.
Paul Belfanti: over the next couple of weeks, we should
start a discussion thread to propose
… how the BG and SC should work
… and try to come together again and drive to a conclusion
… from there we can address the issue of chairs, and the dynamic with W3T
Bill Kasdorf: just a suggestion
… to avoid two docs, a charter and something else, how about putting the
charter in a google doc and having an annotated charter
Cristina Mussinelli: *1 with some proposal for concrete implementation
Paul Belfanti: so start with charter as reference, as we discuss roles?
Bill Kasdorf: yes
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: * liisamk do we have to use web annotations? :)
Luc Audrain: +1 to Tzviya
Avneesh Singh: if BillM is stepping up, we need SC to
coordinate with him
… but is this a temporary thing, or a permanent thing?
… I touched on it in my emails, the other chunk of my time will be
transitioning to focus on member development, recruitment
Bill Kasdorf: I wasn’t suggesting changing the charter, I just didn’t want to develop a separate document that might conflict with it.
Bill Kasdorf: I.e. what we would be doing as a sort of overlay on the charter is the HOW: how exactly are we going to do this thing that the charter calls for us to do?
Bill McCoy: the goal is to have a champion and a tech
lead
… that person would also do member development, which would help get the
funds
Bill McCoy: it takes a lot of BG members to support a
staff person
… and we hope some temp members will become full members
Avneesh Singh: thanks good to know
Bill McCoy: a suggestion for making progress in the next
few weeks
… I added a 4th column to garths doc
… to detail which part of the charter it support
… s
Bill Kasdorf: that sounds fine too. Just wanting to make sure this work aligns with the charter or smokes out any need to amend it.
Garth Conboy: Rick Johnson put that doc together
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I like your idea of the 4th column,
and we should add a 5th column
… some of those things should be done in the CG and the WG
Bill Kasdorf: q
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: a fifth column woulld describe the relationship to other groups
Bill Kasdorf: +1 to Liisa’s 5th column (not to get political)
Paul Belfanti: we might want to add a prioritization column
Bill Kasdorf: I would suggest a ranking in three levels: urgent, important, good to do
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: we’re going back to how the IDPF board works, with prioritization
Bill Kasdorf: rather than trying to rank 1-10, because some things are equally important
Cristina Mussinelli: there are some things that can just be done once, which might not be ongoing activities
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: * p12n is what we will call it
Paul Belfanti: this google doc will have to become a spreadsheet
Bill McCoy: Bill taking off (note I’m online through Monday midday before I take off until Dec 4 - just leaving now for another meeting lol)
Paul Belfanti: we have some action items for the next
couple of weeks
… anything else to discuss?
Ivan Herman: you were asking about timing of these calls
Paul Belfanti: given the US holiday next week, it’s not
dependent on BillM’s travel schedule
… we should give a couple weeks for people to work on document
Dave Cramer: [not minuting callshedding]
Luc Audrain: monthly would be fine
Cristina Mussinelli: +1
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to friday the 1st
Cristina Mussinelli: friday 1st fine for me
Bill Kasdorf: +1
Luc Audrain: Not for me
Tzviya Siegman: Friday 1st works for me
Luc Audrain: Sorry, I can manage it for the 1st
Cristina Mussinelli: thank you
Paul Belfanti: any other business?
Tzviya Siegman: george wanted to remind everyone
Paul Belfanti: this is directed to the SC, there’s a request for board members to renew their IDPF membership
Cristina Mussinelli: Sorry I have to leave
Garth Conboy: this is driven by the w3c’s unwillingness to complete the IP transfer until the legal issues are settled
Garth Conboy: having some IDPF members renew to help finance things
Bill Kasdorf: I have the same problem
Garth Conboy: if folks can do something, please reach out to George or Leslie.
Paul Belfanti: we can close. thanks.