Date: 2018-02-13
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Present: George Kerscher, Liisa McCloy-Kelley, Ivan Herman, Dave Cramer, Ric Wright, Dan Sanicola, Avneesh Singh, Rachel Comerford, Bill McCoy, Bill Kasdorf, Luc Audrain, Tzviya Siegman, Junko Kamata, Julian Calderazi, Jun-ichi Yoshii, Wolfgang Schindler, Garth Conboy, Brian O’Leary, Mateus Teixeira, Laurent Le Meurs, Rick Johnson, Karen Myers, JensKlingelhofer
Regrets: Paul Belfanti, Cristina Mussinelli
Guests:
Chair: Liisa McCloy-Kelley
Scribe(s): Rachel Comerford
Dave Cramer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKmYjSGRx7ttipWTmngGHQkJmxnrH2tcePFOb-gQ7Pc/edit#heading=h.k3859or7msx
Bill McCoy: looks okay to me
George Kerscher: clarification - the community group and their specifications would be approved by the CG and would no longer need the BG to approve?
Dave Cramer: that’s not what it says. it reflects BG approval of CG documents as was documented in the merger agreement.
… it’s unusual for W3C but it’s also unusual for a CG to manage rec track work
Ivan Herman: it is not - we need to be careful about this
Ivan Herman: the w3c process for rec track work does not apply here
George Kerscher: having the PBG approve the CG may help in terms of IP
Avneesh Singh: What about renaming steering committee to coordination committee?
George Kerscher: the sooner we get to epub4 the better
Rick Johnson: it might benefit all of us to explicitly state why we need to have this approval
Garth Conboy: it dates back to the merger - the BG was where all members could join without money but there are ongoing legal challenges with the merger and this protects our agreement moving into that space
Rick Johnson: outside of the legal issue my understanding was the board approved spec releases in the IDPF and this is replacing that board
Bill McCoy: I think Garth explained this well, the W3C inherited this through some unspecified process and decided not to make this a rec through the standardized process
… the BG will provide some formality to the CG
… where CGs traditionally did not produce specs etc
… there is no real precedent to this at the W3C. You can see this as an expedient way to introduce changes
Ivan Herman: +1 to BillM
Rick Johnson: of the fundamental issue is that there is a group outside the CG that sways the CG work then should that be managed within the CG instead
Bill McCoy: that was an explicit decision of the directors and TBL
… there may be complaints
Rick Johnson: if we can insert business oversight into the CG then that might be the solution we need
Bill Kasdorf: there is def a precedent for things developed in a CG and then headed to a rec track
… the BG is not just involved with the CG but also the BG
… it is meant to provide a business perspective. It’s reasonable to provide this kind of role
… this work from the CG will inform the WG and epub4
Brian O’Leary: does the CG in managing epub3 go away when epub4 is released?
Ivan Herman: yes
Garth Conboy: upon the retirement of epub3, yes
Brian O’Leary: there was some discussion of a 2 year window for the CG?
Dave Cramer: the CG has no expiration date
Bill McCoy: the BG has a 2 year charter
… after 2 years the BG charter needs to be reissued, but the CG itself has indefinite life
Dave Cramer: I don’t think the PBG charter expires. It’s undated, as are other BG charters.
Bill McCoy: every commitment can vary in length, but most are 2 years in length (like the BG)
Dave Cramer: Current PBG Charter: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/PublishingBGcharter
Bill McCoy: as garth indicated if epub3 is in maintenance mode and development has stopped, we likely won’t need an epub3 community group but we are a long ways away from that time
Bill Kasdorf: +1 to what Brian just said
Brian O’Leary: I agree with RickJohnson and his perspective in integrating oversight in the CG but since the agreement is in place regarding the 2 year time period, I will respect that and re-raise in one years time if necessary
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: this charter is undated and there is no wording in the charter indicating the time limit
Garth Conboy: I think we should continue as we are until the merger is formally closed.
… we’ve come a long way in resolving this with something like 25 +1s, 1 0, and 1 -1
Dave Cramer: “When the group discusses an issue on the mailing list and there is a call from the group for assessing consensus, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chairs should record a decision and any objections.”
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: should we approve or put it out to a 72 hour vote?
Ivan Herman: it’s up to us how we manage ourselves. However, having a 72 cooling period for the vote may be a good idea.
Bill Kasdorf: then we would have numerical documentation of the votes
Dave Cramer: Note that I’ve resolved all the comments on the Google Doc
Bill McCoy: theres no firm requirement one way or another but a vote would be beneficial
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: sending out for vote
Bill McCoy: the adjustment mentioned in email
… we had 2 folks offering to engage from the Japan side
… Daihei Shiohama was willing to serve as co-lead
… the two Japanese representatives have agreed to share responsibilities.
Brian O’Leary: proposed additional co-chair is Junichi Yoshii (Kodansha)
Bill McCoy: this ensures representation from Japanese publishers
… Daihei Shiohama and Junichi Yoshii would lead together in the external coordination task force
Ivan Herman: w3c staff are ex-officio on these groups, for the record
Brian O’Leary: this working group is meant to coordinate with other groups
… I would want to hold at three
… so the overhead doesn’t out weigh the outcome
… (task force)
Proposed resolution: new Steering Committee slate (including co-chairs and BG task force leads as previously communicated, with addition of Junichi Yoshii of Kodansha who has been added as a co-chair of the External Coordination task force) is considered elected by consensus (Bill McCoy)
Ivan Herman: should we reconsider the name of steering committee as it is a loaded term?
George Kerscher: we may need to until the merger agreement is fully in place
Luc Audrain: +1
Bill McCoy: we need the name to remain in place since it is specified in the IDPF/W3C merger documents
Julian Calderazi: I think we agree.
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: do we need to put this out along with the revised charter?
Ivan Herman: +1
Garth Conboy: I think we should put it out and just count the votes this time
Brian O’Leary: the issue that is not easily addressed from daniel is being creator and evaluator
… the resolution there is in resignation from one or the other groups
… we should put to a vote
Luc Audrain: I want to mention that of the people on the slate, we have no negative votes. Daniel didn’t vote against.
… his objections was and are still with the charter
Dave Cramer: +1
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: can we move ahead?
Brian O’Leary: +1
Julian Calderazi: +1
Tzviya Siegman: +1
Garth Conboy: +1
Wolfgang Schindler: +1
Rachel Comerford: +1
Dan Sanicola: +1
Luc Audrain: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Laurent Le Meurs: +1
George Kerscher: +1
Ric Wright: +1
JensKlingelhofer: +1
Mateus Teixeira: +1
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1
Bill Kasdorf: +1
Rachel Comerford: +1 Rick Johnson
Avneesh Singh: +1
Rick Johnson: co-resource is a sister company that sees lots of epubs flowing through
… we asked who relies on epubcheck
… there were 20-25 a level publishers and 5-6 key channels that are hurt by epubcheck not remaining current or functional
… we can ask each of them for a $5000 donation for support
… I’ve asked tzviya to help write a purpose statement
… that is well over $100K that we could raise to hire a developer to do this work
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: essentially we would be talking about crowd-sourcing funding
… is there a plan for maintenance?
Rick Johnson: this would be primarily for updating
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: BillM?
Bill McCoy: bring epub up to snuff, track it to the latest version, deal with the languishing pull requests and technical debt - if that costs $100K then we should assume a fraction of that for support.
… if someone funds $5K for updating, can they also pay $1K in maintenance fees a year?
… is there a fee schedule that is reasonable for these players
… we may need a more significant investment for epub4
Tzviya Siegman: there is a draft statement
… there is a maintenance release, an update release, and a total rehaul. We need a discussion about who would work on this and how many hours this would take - including the hours needed for the tiers of development
Ric Wright: I and readium would like to participate
… I did some work with Romain to spec out what needs to be done
… and I want to work with this group to see how it should be done etc
Laurent Le Meurs: it’s great to have the BG sizing this and estimating needs
… this is a good way to have an independent org managing this money and plans
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: are you proposing readium manage the money
Laurent Le Meurs: the BG has no bank account and readium is a technically focused company so this seems reasonable
George Kerscher: as long as DAISY and others can participate I think this would be terrific
Bill McCoy: I agree with laurentlemeur
… a low overhead, focused group will spend funds most efficiently
… the first line of business is to see what the market will bear
… we shouldn’t rule out the w3c as managing the funds
… let’s start with a prospectus and maybe some quid pro quo
… allowing contributers to work on the task force determining the future work to be done
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: feelings about this as a fundraising method?
Tzviya Siegman: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Brian O’Leary: +1
Garth Conboy: absolutely
Rachel Comerford: +1
Garth Conboy: +1
Luc Audrain: +1
Wolfgang Schindler: +1
Rick Johnson: I’m coming for all of you
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: let’s get this compiled and distributed
JensKlingelhofer: +1
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: then we can follow up on the prospectus
Rick Johnson: I don’t know if we can make the list from co-resource public
… so the source of the messaging might be Ingram rather than w3c
… I need to make sure we have permission
Tzviya Siegman: we should not put the whole burden on co-resource
Ric Wright: like Amazon?
Tzviya Siegman: we should contact apple and other companies that rely on epubcheck
Brian O’Leary: Hachette is so flush they can put two people on this call
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: how should we move forward with these task forces
Julian Calderazi: smaller task forces should be ok for me.
Ivan Herman: each task force will be unique. I’m not sure there’s a universal role.
Garth Conboy: maybe a document that each team can contribute to that will work to shame people into action
Luc Audrain: should we use the task force system
Ivan Herman: people are still afraid of github
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: so we should use google docs?
Tzviya Siegman: it might be helpful to feature different task forces on the call.
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: anything else
Luc Audrain: I will put myself on the hook for the next call
George Kerscher: can we send out a redlined and not redlined version?
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: yes, we should do that
Julian Calderazi: +1
Karen Myers: +1
Garth Conboy: this is the first time in a while that this felt like we were moving in a positive direction
Julian Calderazi: by all!
Julian Calderazi: bye*