15:24:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pbgsc
15:24:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/12/14-pbgsc-irc
15:24:55 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:24:55 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Steering Committee Telco
15:24:55 <ivan> Chair: laudrain
15:24:55 <ivan> Date: 2018-12-14
15:24:55 <ivan> Regrets+ Garth
15:29:45 <jeff> jeff has joined #pbgsc
15:58:40 <tzviya> present+
15:59:10 <wendyreid> scribenick: wendyreid
15:59:48 <jyoshii> present+
15:59:54 <wendyreid> present+
16:00:01 <RickJ> RickJ has joined #pbgsc
16:00:04 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pbgsc
16:00:13 <RickJ> present+ RickJ
16:00:14 <laudrain> present+
16:00:58 <Karen> present+ Karen
16:01:10 <Rachel> present+
16:01:14 <ivan> present+
16:01:26 <dauwhe> present+
16:01:54 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pbgsc
16:01:59 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:02:17 <liisamk_> liisamk_ has joined #pbgsc
16:03:38 <jeff> present+ jeff
16:03:55 <liisamk_> present+
16:04:05 <George> George has joined #pbgsc
16:04:15 <George> present+ George
16:04:29 <wendyreid> laudrain: One agenda item: when/should we do a change of the configuration of the steering committee to just be chairs or keep the current format
16:04:35 <Daihei> Daihei has joined #pbgsc
16:04:43 <liisamk_> q+
16:04:59 <laudrain> ack liisamk_
16:05:02 <wendyreid> liisamk_: I believe that Garth had reason to continue this configuration until after TPI transition
16:05:17 <jeff> q+
16:05:18 <wendyreid> ... I think that that makes sense and we need to have a discussion of whether there needs to be a change
16:05:34 <laudrain> q+
16:05:40 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:05:40 <laudrain> ack jeff
16:05:50 <wendyreid> jeff: I think there are currently three topics on the table
16:05:59 <wendyreid> ... broader than the coordination of chairs
16:06:10 <wendyreid> ... I think the current congfiguration should be kept until we solve the three issues
16:06:18 <wendyreid> ... 1. the TPI conversion
16:06:42 <Bill_Kasdorf> q-
16:06:45 <wendyreid> ... 2. have we come to ground on the evolution of EPUB 3.2 re: the rec track and roadmap
16:07:05 <RickJ> q+
16:07:06 <wendyreid> ... 3. are we going ot use this call to plan for the meeting with the AB in January
16:07:13 <wendyreid> laudrain: Thanks Jeff
16:07:31 <George> q+
16:07:35 <wendyreid> ... With Rick and Liisa we have a different call for preparing agendas for the BG
16:07:57 <wendyreid> ... until the end of the TPI agreement we should continue having the same group
16:08:12 <wendyreid> ... That makes clear path until the end of January
16:08:45 <wendyreid> ... speaking of next calls we won't have the next one until Dec 28 ,we should cancel for the holidays
16:08:47 <tzviya> q+
16:08:51 <liisamk_> +1 to canceling SC call on the 28th
16:08:58 <wendyreid> ... the next call would be the 11 of January, then the 25th
16:09:03 <laudrain> ack laud
16:09:08 <wendyreid> ... that is my proposal
16:09:15 <laudrain> q+ George
16:09:19 <wendyreid> RickJ: Just wanted to comment on Jeff's point on 2.
16:10:08 <liisamk_> q+
16:10:18 <wendyreid> ... we had a conversation among the BG chairs to come to an agreement that if 3.2 means 3.0.1, and ISO has 3.0.1, we should leave off the rec track conversation
16:10:32 <wendyreid> ... we have agreed that there is no need to pursue the rec track now
16:10:59 <wendyreid> liisamk_: I would clarify, the key there is "now" at this moment there is not a driving need for members of the BG to get to rec track
16:11:05 <Rachel> q+
16:11:25 <wendyreid> ... because there is concern it would slow down 3.2, confuse 3.2, and if someone would have to give something up that they are using
16:11:38 <laudrain> ack RickJ
16:11:46 <wendyreid> ... many of us feel we would not be changing anything substantial, until we get there we cannot convince them
16:11:53 <wendyreid> ... we move forward with testing
16:11:53 <jyoshii> +1 to liisa
16:12:07 <liisamk_> ack lii
16:12:11 <laudrain> ack George
16:12:18 <dauwhe> q+
16:12:28 <wendyreid> George: Adding to Jeff's 3 points, just a reminder that IDPF has not dissolved yet and there are issues that make having the SC around until thel egal issues are resovled.
16:12:34 <laudrain> ack tzviya
16:12:59 <Daihei> +1 to liisa as well
16:12:59 <wendyreid> tzviya: I was going to say something similar to George, Garth meant that we need to have something called the SC for legal reasons
16:13:18 <wendyreid> ... in response to Liisa and Rick, I did not understand it that way,
16:13:33 <wendyreid> ... ISO was a side benefit, the benefit was having a rec-track spec
16:13:49 <wendyreid> ... we would still proceed with publishing 3.2 as a note and it would go out with epubcheck in march
16:14:04 <laudrain> q+
16:14:06 <wendyreid> ... and continue with the process in the WG, and it would bolster it in later life
16:14:06 <Rachel> +1 tzviya
16:14:31 <wendyreid> liisamk_: We understand that, the perception right now is that if we say the WG is going to focus on it, it's going to distract from the work of the WG
16:14:49 <laudrain> q?
16:15:10 <wendyreid> ... we're all on the same page there's ultimately a good goal there, but the perception is that there's no difference to the BG between a CG note and a WG recommendation
16:15:15 <Daihei> q+
16:15:17 <wendyreid> ... is that the priority now?
16:15:24 <laudrain> ack Rachel
16:15:27 <laudrain> q-
16:16:00 <wendyreid> Rachel: My biggest concern for me is when I go to my management is that we've done all work as a feeder group for ISO instead of the W3C
16:16:16 <wendyreid> ... why are we paying for W3C participation if we just shipped something to ISO instead
16:16:34 <laudrain> q?
16:16:35 <wendyreid> ... also how do I convince TPI members to become W3C members when they should apparently just join ISO instead
16:17:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> countries are ISO members and NISO is the organization that represents the US in ISO
16:17:05 <wendyreid> ... and if there is a perception issue with what we are working on, as a BG we need to clarify, not give into this perception
16:17:08 <laudrain> q+
16:17:20 <wendyreid> ... it is not our responsibility to give into misconceptions about the work
16:17:27 <laudrain> ack dauwhe
16:17:31 <liisamk_> q+
16:17:48 <wendyreid> dauwhe: I have said this before, rec track for 3.2 is not a goal, but is possibly a means towards a goal
16:18:00 <wendyreid> ... I want EPUB to be better, there are significant existing issues with EPUB
16:18:12 <wendyreid> ... what this group needs to do is figure out what rthe future of EPUB looks like
16:18:20 <wendyreid> ... some seem to see 3.2 as the end of the line
16:18:36 <wendyreid> ... there are significant changes to EPUB that would improve people's lives a lot, like allowing for HTML
16:18:41 <Bill_Kasdorf> yep I knew that I just wanted it on the record. Which is why I didn't get on the queue for it!
16:19:04 <wendyreid> ... the CG is diving into the testing process, Wendy provided a framework, others have offered to assist with tests, I have some written
16:19:23 <laudrain> q?
16:19:24 <wendyreid> ... how do we get from here to our future? Rec track is a way to do it, but it's a step along the way
16:19:34 <laudrain> ack Daihei
16:19:42 <dauwhe> s/is a way/might be a way/
16:20:06 <wendyreid> Daihei: We had this discussion amongst the Japanese industry, in the scope of 3.2 of going to rec track, we do not see a problem, but at this point we want to keep the compatability
16:20:29 <wendyreid> ... if there is any chance of change, we need to figure out the features in danger of being reconsidered
16:20:36 <wendyreid> ... the business is ongoing and we cannot stop it
16:20:56 <jyoshii> +1 to Daihei
16:21:00 <wendyreid> ... it is a serious concern of the members considering TPI, we feel strongly and agree with Liisa that we do not need to move to rec track right now
16:21:03 <laudrain> q?
16:21:27 <wendyreid> laudrain: As Liisa emphasized, the important part of the rec track conversation is the timing, and the changing.
16:21:53 <wendyreid> ... as Daihei said we do business with EPUB, and the business should not be in danger of changes because of the rec track process
16:22:11 <wendyreid> ... but we do support the CG testing and bug reporting so that we may improve the interoperability of EPUB 3.2
16:22:21 <wendyreid> ... even if its being kept in the note from the CG
16:22:53 <wendyreid> ... I also want to share that outside of our expert circles, the publishing industry, who is doing the most work in print, they do not know the difference between a CG and WG
16:23:09 <wendyreid> ... it's a strong endorsement that its a W3C report and supported by the W3C and published within it
16:23:12 <Rachel> q+
16:23:23 <wendyreid> ... it's supported by epubcheck and financed by the BG fundraising efforts
16:23:33 <wendyreid> ... and the Publishing@W3C effort
16:23:49 <wendyreid> ... it is the most important part, and important to our friends from Japan
16:23:54 <George> q+
16:24:03 <wendyreid> ... we need to be able to continue to do business with EPUB/epubcheck as it is today
16:24:24 <jeff> q+ to comment on "supported by W3C"
16:24:24 <tzviya> q+ to ask about consensus
16:24:27 <wendyreid> ... the BG co-chairs agree we need to make this mature, and it is not mature yet, the CG needs to report back to help with this
16:24:27 <laudrain> q?
16:24:33 <laudrain> ack laudrain
16:24:41 <Daihei> +1 to Luc
16:24:50 <wendyreid> liisamk_: I want to go back to something that tzviya said, I want to clarify that it's a matter of timing and getting buy-in
16:24:52 <laudrain> ack liisamk_
16:25:18 <wendyreid> ... all of the conversations with the BG have been that we don't want the WG to be distracted, we want them to be focused on audio, and we need stability
16:25:23 <laudrain> +1 to audioPUB priority
16:25:38 <wendyreid> ... without the testing we can't assure people of EPUBs stability
16:25:44 <wendyreid> ... we can move to rec after testing
16:26:25 <wendyreid> ... are we working towards ISO? We are working towards the better, cleaner EPUBS, but it is confusing to announce it is released in March, but also on the rec track
16:26:32 <laudrain> +1
16:26:33 <wendyreid> ... and there is concern it would change after 3.2 is adopted
16:26:49 <dauwhe> q+ to say that we've already adopted 3.2 :)
16:27:00 <wendyreid> ... ISO is important for certain parts of the work, Japanese gov't is needed, it is important in Taiwan
16:27:11 <laudrain> q?
16:27:20 <wendyreid> ... we can write w3c specs as w3c specs, and get them rubber stamped by ISO
16:27:41 <wendyreid> Rachel: I'm not arguing about whether or not NISO is or is not important
16:27:56 <laudrain> ack Rachel
16:28:10 <wendyreid> ... but we do keep hearing stories from the BG that small businesses are concerned about the changes in the spec status, and I'm concerned we're throwing these things out as data
16:28:19 <wendyreid> ... when we don't actually have data from these users
16:28:42 <liisamk_> q+
16:28:45 <wendyreid> ... I want to be wary of this, we have a lot of knowledge and epxerience, but we need data to understand these groups and their needs
16:28:47 <laudrain> q?
16:29:01 <wendyreid> ... we can't put statements out in this group about those people
16:29:06 <laudrain> ack George
16:29:27 <wendyreid> George: This is a pretty complicated discussion, an ISO spec does not require 2 implementations to be approved
16:30:01 <wendyreid> ... down the road becoming a W3C rec with implementations is a good option, but going through the testing and best practice process is good
16:30:31 <wendyreid> ... I also see IMS and QTI (?), how does this impact higher ed, maybe not for us but we need to get information on this
16:30:48 <wendyreid> ... I want to see EPUB3.2 adopted and embraced, even if it's a CG note
16:30:56 <laudrain> ack Jeff
16:30:56 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on "supported by W3C"
16:31:17 <wendyreid> jeff: I'm trying to stay neutral on the topic because I believe it should be a community decision and I have to protect my brand
16:31:35 <wendyreid> ... I think Luc mentioned people would be happy if the work came from the W3C regardless of group
16:32:10 <laudrain> q+
16:32:12 <wendyreid> ... I need to make it clear, a CG report is not supported by the W3C, we support and encourage CGs to be used for incubation and experimentation, but it is different from the WG in terms of support
16:32:37 <wendyreid> ... but the argument that a note from a CG is as good as a WG recommendation is just as supported is not true
16:32:45 <laudrain> ack tzviya
16:32:45 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about consensus
16:32:52 <wendyreid> tzviya: I have a few points to go through, this has become a heated topic
16:33:09 <wendyreid> ... 1. to the BG chairs, are you planning on holding a vote on the decision in the BG?
16:33:35 <wendyreid> liisamk_: Honestly we do not know, we kind of got to a place where we could not wrangle the conversation in the BG and TF because it was all over the place
16:33:53 <wendyreid> ... the 3 of us were in disagreement about where to go and spent and hour on hashing it out
16:34:06 <wendyreid> ... we brought it here for discussion
16:34:19 <wendyreid> ... we're not saying no rec track, just not deciding by the end of the year
16:34:26 <laudrain> q?
16:34:37 <wendyreid> ... to Rachel's point, there's a lot of politics and testing results to get us to a place where the BG could make a decision
16:34:57 <wendyreid> tzviya: Why don't we talk about (with the BG), since we're publishing the note in March
16:35:12 <wendyreid> ... let's discuss establishing a timeline for getting to rec track
16:35:26 <wendyreid> ... we need to manage expectations and perceptions, who is doing what work and where
16:35:45 <wendyreid> ... and if there is concerns that the WG will drop it, people need to step up to take on tasks
16:36:10 <wendyreid> ... this is also about writing about what we do, I have been in groups where every release is accompanied by a blog post
16:36:36 <laudrain> q?
16:36:37 <wendyreid> ... we need to figure out the time line, but it's not happening quickly, andi t will not hurt any business, but we need to make a decision
16:37:06 <wendyreid> dauwhe: We actually didn't know it at the time, but Hachette has been providing EPUB 3.2 to the supply chain for a while now
16:37:12 <laudrain> ack dauwhe
16:37:12 <Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to say that we've already adopted 3.2 :)
16:37:15 <wendyreid> ... we get wrapped up in the little differences
16:37:29 <wendyreid> ... the industry has had it for a while, we have struggled with the messaging
16:37:41 <laudrain> ack liisamk_
16:37:53 <wendyreid> liisamk_: So dauwhe maybe that goes to our communication, blog posting and communicating
16:38:22 <wendyreid> ... I can certainly go to my team and find out how close we are to 3.2, maybe part of the launch in March is that PRH and Hachette announce they already didi t
16:38:25 <laudrain> ack laudrain
16:38:30 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:38:51 <wendyreid> laudrain: Jeff it's true that the rec is not a CG report, and it's important to the W3C that a standard be a rec, EPUB is different
16:39:05 <wendyreid> ... it was a rec from the IDPF in 2011, we have been doing business with it for years
16:39:31 <wendyreid> ... we cannot forget that EPUB being part of W3C is a chance, a fear, and a risk for the publishing industry
16:39:51 <wendyreid> ... our effort as a BG is to explain to the industry that the work being done is for stabilization and interoperability
16:40:13 <wendyreid> ... for the industry its a benefit that it's being working on by CG
16:40:44 <wendyreid> ... and it's being worked on by groups like DAISY, and it's in good shape because it is being contributed to by so many people
16:40:56 <wendyreid> ... as publishing BG, we are thinking of the future and the future is web publications
16:41:04 <wendyreid> ... it's important for the future of our industry
16:41:19 <wendyreid> ... and we have identified audiobooks as the next big effort
16:41:33 <wendyreid> ... if the BG has priorities to express, this is that
16:41:35 <laudrain> q?
16:41:44 <Daihei> +1 to Luc
16:41:58 <laudrain> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:42:07 <wendyreid> Bill_Kasdorf: i just have a question, on the issue of 3.2 going to rec track, that means rechartering the WG. not a different WG?
16:42:19 <laudrain> q?
16:42:21 <wendyreid> ... the WG would turn it's attention to 3.2 and not EPUB4
16:42:42 <tzviya> q+
16:42:50 <wendyreid> laudrain: It might even been something dangerous for the WG to have 3.2 as a rec, who will think about EPUB4
16:42:55 <laudrain> ack tzviya
16:43:05 <dauwhe> q+
16:43:09 <jeff> q+ to talk about roadmaps
16:43:17 <wendyreid> tzviya: I would like to quote dauwhe, we chartered the WG a while ago, do we really need EPUB4 right now?
16:43:48 <wendyreid> ... a lot has changed in the last 2 years, it is a priority for the WG To work on audiobooks, even though it wasn't in the charter, it does force us to reckon with the needs of the world today
16:43:49 <laudrain> ack dauwhe
16:44:02 <wendyreid> dauwhe: Perhaps another way to phrase my question is, what is EPUB4?
16:44:07 <wendyreid> ... we have not been clear on that
16:44:19 <wendyreid> ... we think of it as a derivative of WP, what does that mean? What does it look like?
16:45:00 <wendyreid> ... WP looks like EPUB in JSON, would we plug in a different packaging mechanism, to convince publishers to adopt a new thing, we need to demonstrate why its best to do that
16:45:07 <wendyreid> ... EPUB3 is still not full adopted
16:45:13 <liisamk_> q+
16:45:25 <wendyreid> ... if we have WP or EPUB4 what is the argument for implementing them?
16:45:32 <laudrain> ack jeff
16:45:32 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about roadmaps
16:45:41 <wendyreid> jeff: So I think tzviya and dauwhe are asking the roadmap question for EPUB
16:46:00 <wendyreid> ... 2 years ago we thought that EPUB4 is he best roadmap, but we are now not sure about the timeframe or content
16:46:32 <wendyreid> ... we have hada hard time focusing on those questions, thinking of the roadmap, if we are doing 3.2 rec or not, it's two different exercises
16:46:54 <wendyreid> ... this long dragging question of 3.2 is not getting resolved (or is), but it's taken us away from the roadmap question
16:47:15 <wendyreid> ... a question for the SC, where does the roadmap question take place, in the SC, BG, or WG
16:47:24 <wendyreid> ... and don't ask if it's the champion as we don't have one
16:47:28 <laudrain> ack liisamk_
16:47:34 <wendyreid> liisamk_: I think Jeff is right, it is the key question
16:47:37 <wendyreid> ... it comes back to timing
16:48:06 <wendyreid> ... we had a lot of pressure at the beginning of 2018 to solidify 3.2, validate it, resolve it with epubcheck
16:48:30 <wendyreid> ... as of the fall we realized the overall direction is not realized and rec track might be a possibility
16:48:43 <wendyreid> ... the roadmap question is for the BG, the WG, and the SC together
16:49:04 <laudrain> q?
16:49:06 <wendyreid> ... I raised this with the chairs, is it time for us to do a survey of the industry to find out where the missing needs are, and what are the perceptions
16:49:25 <jeff> q+
16:49:31 <wendyreid> ... here is how we build a plan, but we need to carefuly word it, and it's easy to take a survey and get data that is unhelpful
16:49:31 <jeff> q-
16:50:22 <wendyreid> RickJ: I wanted to use this opportunity to let everyone know that Ingram is ending its involvement in the W3C, we'll still be participating in the CG, and it was a hard decision
16:50:30 <wendyreid> ... we will also need a third chair for the BG
16:50:52 <laudrain> q?
16:51:18 <wendyreid> ... Leadership of the company, changed our strategy, and have made many acquisitions, courseware, analytics, digital credential work, and we are trying to figure out how to focus time and funds
16:51:41 <wendyreid> ... it was a hard decision to decide if what we are doing aligns with the W3C, where can we put out efforts to get the most benefit
16:52:11 <wendyreid> ... it was a very hard decision, and we fully intend to support EPUB, being a leader in implementation, but leading creation of standards is not a priority
16:52:22 <wendyreid> liisamk_: I understand why not the full, but why not BG membership?
16:52:38 <wendyreid> RickJ: I am still trying to stay involved with BG, we are discussing it
16:52:59 <wendyreid> ... a question for Jeff and team, does my membership end with TPI or the calendar year, I am still having that conversation
16:53:32 <wendyreid> laudrain: In practical terms, how will this take place? What is the process to find a new chair for the BG? What are the steps?
16:53:36 <laudrain> q?
16:54:11 <wendyreid> RickJ: I think it would be good to understand if there is someone else who wants to be a co-chair, I would love to have Asian representation in the chairs, I think it's time to look at that
16:54:37 <wendyreid> laudrain: Inside the page of the PBG at W3C, I assume there is work to do?
16:54:48 <wendyreid> ... thank you Rick, and we appreciate your help
16:55:01 <wendyreid> tzviya: Are you looking for the logistics Luc?
16:55:42 <laudrain> q?
16:55:45 <wendyreid> laudrain: Are chairs chosen by the group, I support having a representative from Asia to have the 3 parts of the publishing world presented, I would be happy to have someone in business insteado f pure technical issues
16:55:59 <wendyreid> ... do you know tzviya? Or can Ivan help?
16:56:15 <wendyreid> tzviya: The chair is appointed, Ivan can help, but you and Liisa should discuss?
16:56:22 <tzviya> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ri-6KT5Kfg5HPYzKTKvlWUswi4dgz3UGd7jrpivxXE/edit?usp=sharing
16:56:29 <wendyreid> ... I want to take a moment to remind everyone of the event in January
16:56:44 <wendyreid> ... I've started discussions on food and drink with Liisa and Garth
16:57:01 <wendyreid> ... we don't have a lot of registrations, the event is January 23rd in PRH in New York
16:57:09 <wendyreid> ... I've confirmed most of the speakers
16:57:24 <Karen> q+
16:57:27 <wendyreid> ... start with casual food time, then some panels on publishing and W3C
16:57:33 <wendyreid> ... more tips than instructions
16:57:44 <wendyreid> ... it would be great to have more people come!
16:57:52 <laudrain> q?
16:57:57 <laudrain> ack Karen
16:58:06 <wendyreid> Karen: No outreach has been done, Liisa and I will catch up on monday
16:58:23 <wendyreid> ... my sense is that to include BG, WG, TPI, and interested community in Manhattan
16:58:44 <wendyreid> ... would the group also see value in adding a dial-in number, the time would permit Japanese participation
16:58:50 <jeff> q+
16:58:56 <wendyreid> ... or would that be too difficult and this is the first in a few events
16:59:00 <laudrain> ack jeff
16:59:36 <laudrain> q?
16:59:43 <wendyreid> Jeff: It's a logistical question to leave with tzviya and PBG, SC, as I see it there's a certain intimacy of conversation informally in a room having a heart ot heart with people physically present
16:59:53 <wendyreid> ... does it start becoming more scripted/formal if we dial in
16:59:55 <liisamk_> q+
17:00:00 <laudrain> ack liisamk_
17:00:34 <wendyreid> liisamk_: To your point, I think the intimacy of the event is hard to do a call in, plus the room I've chosen
17:00:43 <wendyreid> tzviya: So this is an in-person event only
17:01:18 <wendyreid> laudrain: I haven't had any objection to cancelling the call on the 28th, so we will reconvene on Jan 11 in 2019! Happy holidays!
17:01:21 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/12/14-pbgsc-minutes.html ivan