15:04:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pbgsc
15:04:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/01/11-pbgsc-irc
15:04:43 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:04:43 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Steering Committee Telco
15:04:43 <ivan> Chair:  ivan
15:04:43 <ivan> Date: 2019-01-11
15:04:43 <ivan> Regrets+ Wendy, Luc, RickJ, BillK
15:29:19 <ivan> Regrets- BillK
15:55:54 <ivan> present+ ivan
15:57:22 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pbgsc
15:59:50 <tzviya> present+
16:00:05 <jeff> jeff has joined #pbgsc
16:00:21 <ivan> present+ Luc
16:00:25 <ivan> present+ Daihei
16:00:45 <dauwhe> present+
16:00:54 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pbgsc
16:01:05 <ivan> present+ george
16:01:17 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:01:39 <Karen> present+ Karen
16:01:55 <Rachel> present+
16:02:09 <Daihei> Daihei has joined #pbgsc
16:03:22 <liisamk> liisamk has joined #pbgsc
16:03:27 <liisamk> present+
16:03:43 <dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe
16:03:45 <jeff> present+ jeff
16:04:35 <dauwhe> ivan: I'll chair today
16:04:39 <dauwhe> ... let's start
16:04:56 <dauwhe> ... first agenda item is the co-chair of the BG
16:05:05 <ivan> Topic: BG co-chairing
16:05:08 <dauwhe> ... Rick has resigned
16:05:09 <laudrain> q+
16:05:22 <dauwhe> ... we don't have a fully-baked process to get a chair
16:05:32 <ivan> ack luc
16:05:34 <Bill_Kasdorf> half baked works fine for me
16:05:37 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:05:50 <dauwhe> laudrain: we have explain to the PBG that Rick stepped down
16:05:58 <dauwhe> ... we haven't had a PBG call since mid-December
16:06:18 <dauwhe> ... we had contact with Daihei in December, who consented to be a candidate for co-chair
16:06:23 <George> George has joined #pbgsc
16:06:27 <dauwhe> ... with support from Liisa and I
16:06:54 <George> present+ George
16:06:57 <dauwhe> ... for the sake of fairness, we should ask for any other candidates, and ask on the next BG call
16:07:12 <dauwhe> ... we would verify there are no other candidates, and propose Daihei
16:07:16 <ivan> q?
16:07:23 <jeff> Daihei++
16:07:29 <garth> garth has joined #pbgsc
16:07:34 <ivan> daihei++ indeed:-)
16:07:36 <garth> present+ Garth
16:07:38 <dauwhe> ... Daihei is supported by the publishing industry in Japan
16:07:49 <dauwhe> Daihei: thank you
16:08:02 <George> daihei would be wonderful
16:08:05 <dauwhe> ... you did a good job of explaining :)
16:08:19 <dauwhe> ... we need to get confirmation from the members of PBG
16:08:38 <ivan> q?
16:08:41 <ivan> q+
16:08:57 <dauwhe> ... on behalf of asian publishers, I would to contribute to the publishing BG
16:09:14 <dauwhe> ... from a business point of view as well as coordinating technology.
16:09:18 <dauwhe> ... I will do my best
16:09:20 <ivan> ack ivan
16:09:23 <dauwhe> ivan: thanks very much that you accept this
16:09:40 <dauwhe> ... on a practical level
16:09:52 <Karen> +1 Daihei's role
16:09:53 <laudrain> q+
16:09:54 <dauwhe> ... 1. do you want to send an email to the BG before the meeting?
16:10:01 <liisamk> q+
16:10:25 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:10:25 <dauwhe> ... B. We have the call on Tuesday. Do we want to have a time limit on other candidates? And when would we choose?
16:10:35 <dauwhe> laudrain: I understand there is no formal process for BGs
16:10:39 <dauwhe> ... it should be fair
16:10:56 <dauwhe> ...we have already discussed agenda for next BG call, and put the information in the agenda
16:11:17 <dauwhe> ... the stepping down of Rick, the call for other candidates, and the proposal of Daihei with the support of the chairs
16:11:22 <dauwhe> ... I don't know how long
16:11:27 <George> q+
16:11:28 <dauwhe> ... I'll send the agenda tonight
16:11:56 <dauwhe> liisamk: I think we should give them a week
16:12:06 <George> q-
16:12:17 <dauwhe> ivan: If we have no other candidates after a week, then we're OK
16:12:25 <dauwhe> ... otherwise we have a vote
16:12:39 <dauwhe> laudrain: on Tuesday we can present Daihei's candidicy
16:12:41 <ivan> ack liisamk
16:13:17 <dauwhe> liisamk: after you send the tuesday agenda, it would be nice if we could have rick send a more formal statement, and if daihei could send an introduction of who you are and why you want to do this
16:13:20 <dauwhe> Daihei: no problem!
16:13:22 <ivan> ack George
16:13:24 <dauwhe> ivan: I agree
16:13:26 <Karen> +1 Liisa
16:13:47 <dauwhe> george: it's already been addressed... as long as in the announcement that it is open for other people, and we have one candidate
16:13:47 <ivan> q?
16:14:01 <dauwhe> ivan: we know what we want to do.
16:14:04 <ivan> Topic: EPUB3.2 Rec track issue
16:14:33 <dauwhe> tzviya: this came up in the wg chairs call, and were talking about goals for the WG
16:14:46 <dauwhe> ... we would like to see this issue resolved so we can understand what the WG will be doing
16:14:56 <dauwhe> ... whether it comes to us or not, we do need to know the scope
16:15:14 <liisamk> q+
16:15:15 <jeff> q+
16:15:19 <dauwhe> ivan: to be very clear about it, we would need a decision, but this has been dragging on for a long time
16:15:21 <dauwhe> q+
16:15:30 <ivan> ack liisamk
16:15:31 <dauwhe> ivan: we need some sort of clear statement
16:15:48 <dauwhe> liisamk: a clear statement of not now does not necessarily mean not 2019
16:16:03 <dauwhe> ... from the BG perspective, there can't be a clear moving forward until there is more testing
16:16:18 <dauwhe> ... because the asian market will not support if there will be substantive changes
16:16:24 <Rachel> q+
16:16:31 <ivan> ack jeff
16:16:33 <dauwhe> ... and I don't think we'll have consensus until the BG is further along with testing
16:16:44 <dauwhe> jeff: I wanted to restate the team's POV
16:16:54 <dauwhe> ... first, I support tzviya's request
16:17:14 <dauwhe> ... the PWG started a couple years ago. We're in the process of focusing in audio. I'd like to see a win for the PWG.
16:17:23 <dauwhe> ... it's harder to have a win when there's too much going on.
16:17:40 <dauwhe> ... in terms of which way, should it be on REC track or not?
16:18:00 <dauwhe> ... there was some discussion in earlier meetings, about how it is unclear how to navigate in w3c
16:18:15 <dauwhe> ... I still strongly believe that w3c is here for the benefit of its members, and the members should decide
16:18:21 <dauwhe> ... the community should decide
16:18:32 <dauwhe> ... if the community thinks rec track is of value, we could support that
16:18:45 <ivan> q?
16:18:49 <dauwhe> ... and we talked a bit about differences from the CG spec, that's a solvable problem
16:19:05 <dauwhe> ... and if the community doesn't want it, then that's fine. We're happy to go either way.
16:19:11 <ivan> ack dauwhe
16:19:12 <Karen> scribenick: Karen
16:19:33 <Karen> Dauwhe: Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I have been thinking about this a lot over the past couple of months
16:19:39 <Karen> ...and I am coming to the personal conclusion that
16:19:51 <Karen> ...I don't think it's worth putting EPUB3.2 on the Rec Track at this point
16:20:10 <Karen> ...I heard and appreciate the value of testing and stand by that
16:20:17 <Karen> ...I have been doing a careful review of the spec
16:20:26 <Karen> ...I'm convinced EPUB can be a much better spec
16:20:39 <Karen> ...and ultimately I can see EPUB becoming a rec
16:20:47 <Karen> ...I would like to see EPUB a native way of how publications are expressed
16:20:59 <Karen> ...I am starting to think about how we can see them as an aspect of some future spec
16:21:06 <Karen> ...rather than this isolated thing by itself
16:21:14 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:21:18 <Karen> ...Want EPUB to evolve in concert with the web and other forms of publications related to the web
16:21:22 <liisamk> q+
16:21:28 <Karen> ...Working on expressing that idea with more clarity in various forms
16:21:41 <Karen> ...Right now doing EPUB3.2 as Rec provides the value we need given the level fo effort
16:21:44 <ivan> scribenick: dauwhe
16:21:47 <Karen> Ivan: thank you
16:21:48 <ivan> ack Rachel
16:22:00 <ivan> q+
16:22:00 <dauwhe> Rachel: I support whatever conclusion Dave comes to
16:22:08 <dauwhe> ... there are two things I want to say about previous comments
16:22:21 <dauwhe> ... without a timeline for discussing this as a group, we're at risk for testing forever
16:22:28 <dauwhe> ... and we can continue to put off testing
16:22:37 <tzviya> +1 to Rachel's comments about testing and timeline
16:22:45 <dauwhe> ... we have great conversations, but not a track record of doing work outside of meetings
16:22:54 <dauwhe> ... many members are not doing a lot of work
16:23:06 <dauwhe> ... the WG with paying membership has many more active members
16:23:19 <dauwhe> ... I do think testing is important, but we need to have a timeline
16:23:30 <ivan> q?
16:23:43 <dauwhe> ... the second thing is, we must be careful about not having one voice represent a community, especially when one voice is particularly loud
16:24:03 <ivan> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:24:06 <dauwhe> ... I respect the experience they have, but we have to be careful when we say "the asian market" when we're talking about a single person
16:24:14 <dauwhe> Bill_Kasdorf: this may have been discussed and decided
16:24:28 <dauwhe> ... my question and concerns are related to EPUB 4
16:24:38 <George> q+
16:24:39 <dauwhe> ... which we are chartered to do by the end of the year
16:24:43 <dauwhe> q+ to comment on EPUB 4
16:24:45 <ivan> ack liisamk
16:25:05 <ivan> q- later
16:25:05 <ivan> q?
16:25:05 <dauwhe> liisamk: so I'm interested to hear that dave feels the value is not necessarily there
16:25:13 <dauwhe> ... I'm also concerned about how this relates to EPUB 4
16:25:33 <dauwhe> ... what the BG expressed as a shared desire for 3.2 was that it was good, it was solid, it was supported
16:25:40 <dauwhe> ... and that it was stable
16:25:45 <laudrain> +1
16:26:09 <dauwhe> ... making it rec track would help us in that stability, if not from a spec practice then from having the W3C imprinteur
16:26:31 <dauwhe> ... Rachel , I agree with your points--we need timelines, and we need better ways to ensure one voice does not drown out all overs
16:26:37 <dauwhe> ... Makoto was not the only voice against
16:26:47 <laudrain> q+
16:26:56 <dauwhe> ... I'm happy to try to regroup the small team that was talking about this
16:27:04 <dauwhe> ... and to figure out a timeline on a decision
16:27:05 <ivan> q-
16:27:19 <dauwhe> ... we're going to test from here to here, look at that from there to there... and then make a decision
16:27:20 <garth> q+
16:27:22 <ivan> ack George
16:27:42 <dauwhe> George: I wouldn't want anybody to think that I'm speaking for the entire a11y community
16:28:06 <dauwhe> ... and I think Makoto's presentation of himself as a spokesperson for several countries is something we should minimize
16:28:22 <dauwhe> ... having a 3.2 that the industry can use now and have confidence in is very important
16:28:26 <laudrain> +1
16:28:34 <dauwhe> ... I want to move it to rec track, but I don't know the right time
16:28:35 <ivan> q+
16:28:41 <dauwhe> ... I think there are issues that REC would fix
16:28:52 <dauwhe> ... I think it should be there in the long term
16:28:57 <dauwhe> ... but resources are a big, big question
16:29:06 <dauwhe> ... a lot of us are very stretched.
16:29:07 <Karen> scribenick: Karen
16:29:10 <ivan> ack dauwhe
16:29:10 <Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to comment on EPUB 4
16:29:32 <Karen> Dauwhe: I guess another way to express my concern is that I don't want to do a Rec Track EPUB3.2 without understanding
16:29:39 <Karen> ...what the roadmap for EPUB in general is
16:29:55 <Karen> ...we don't know EPUB4 would look like, the business case for it, and the relationship to our other efforts right now
16:30:01 <Karen> ...I want to have the big picture in place
16:30:06 <Karen> ...before doing all this work on Rec Track
16:30:12 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Dave
16:30:16 <Karen> ...know where we are going before we get in the car and start driving
16:30:16 <ivan> scribenick: dauwhe
16:30:16 <dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe
16:30:17 <garth> q?
16:30:22 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:30:24 <George> agree with Dave
16:30:42 <dauwhe> laudrain: as I hear about the position of the Asian industry, I would like to ask Daihei if he could express his view on that subject
16:31:10 <dauwhe> Daihei: I cannot represent all of Asia. I primarily spoke to the major publishers in Japan.
16:31:21 <dauwhe> ... we would like to continue with EPUB 3, and EPUB 3.2 is good enough
16:31:36 <dauwhe> ... as long as we can continue with the business, rec track is not needed immediately
16:31:55 <dauwhe> ... but we are not opposed to rec track, but we are concerned about the amount of time needed
16:32:04 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:32:06 <dauwhe> ... we don't want EPUB 3.2 up in the air for such a long time
16:32:14 <garth> q?
16:32:16 <dauwhe> ... we want EPUB 3 business to continue
16:32:17 <ivan> ack garth
16:32:26 <dauwhe> garth: I wanted to chime in on bill's question
16:32:41 <dauwhe> ... EPUB4 as it was envisioned was going to be a profile of a packaged web publication
16:32:46 <dauwhe> ... that will not happen this year
16:33:06 <dauwhe> ... WP proper doesn't have that much of a constituency, so packaging it doesn't have a constituency
16:33:22 <dauwhe> ... we do seem to have a constituency for audio books,
16:33:38 <dauwhe> ... I am sensitive to Jeff's comments about a need for a win; audio books might be that win
16:33:40 <laudrain> +1
16:33:49 <dauwhe> ... I lean a bit towards rec track,
16:33:53 <laudrain> q+
16:33:55 <dauwhe> ... maybe we can make 3.2 that win
16:34:04 <laudrain> +1
16:34:19 <ivan> ack ivan
16:34:25 <dauwhe> .... EPUB 3.2 is significant; it should exist in the world, and we should make it as much of a standard as if it was blessed by w3c
16:34:30 <dauwhe> ivan: coming back to the original problem
16:34:39 <garth> s/w3c/IDPF/
16:34:44 <dauwhe> ... from the WG point of view, the current situation is disturbing
16:34:55 <dauwhe> ... we would have to recharter if we do REC 3.2
16:35:04 <dauwhe> ... it has been a problem for the WG for 6-7 months
16:35:09 <dauwhe> ... this question was lurking around
16:35:23 <dauwhe> ... the way I hear the various comments
16:35:36 <tzviya> q+
16:35:38 <dauwhe> ... I have the impression there is no consensus to do REC track right now
16:35:54 <dauwhe> ... maybe we should decide on a date, when we will come back to the issue
16:36:01 <dauwhe> ... in the meantime the CG does testing work
16:36:12 <dauwhe> ... maybe we come back to the issue at TPAC or at the end of the year
16:36:34 <dauwhe> ... on a practical level, the WG charter ends in mid-2020. Maybe we look then, when all these issues converge
16:36:40 <dauwhe> ... the current, unclear status is the worst
16:36:42 <ivan> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:37:18 <dauwhe> Bill_Kasdorf: what I'm hearing emerging here is that 3.2 isn't an advance, it's a clarification and
16:37:28 <dauwhe> ... let's make sure we don't drag on the ability to use something that works
16:38:16 <dauwhe> ... EPUB works for books. Other constituencies might need other things.
16:38:16 <laudrain> yes
16:38:23 <dauwhe> ... let's leave 3.2 to the CG
16:38:33 <dauwhe> ... take it out of the agenda for the WG
16:38:43 <dauwhe> ... let the WG address the future of EPUB
16:38:51 <dauwhe> ... let 3.2 do its job in the meantime
16:39:01 <garth> q?
16:39:19 <dauwhe> ivan: looking at the time, there are two other agenda items, and one is time-critical
16:39:20 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:39:51 <dauwhe> laudrain: I would like to say that for the publishing industry, EPUB spec right now is in disturbed position, because of 3.1, which can't be validated
16:40:32 <dauwhe> ... to get to a peaceful situation, the work of the CG is a win for the EPUB community. The big job is to present 3.2 as the final report of the CG for the community
16:40:46 <dauwhe> ... and we have EPUBCheck working on 3.2 in March 2019
16:40:50 <dauwhe> ... this is a win
16:41:11 <ivan> ack tzviya
16:41:23 <dauwhe> ... and EPUB 3 is not on the charter for the WG, and Audio can be the win for the WG
16:41:25 <tzviya> proposal: The CG will work on testing for <defined time period>. The WG will not work on EPUB 3.2. Test results will inform work on potential revisions of EPUB and possibly on WP. The BG can propose to bring 3.2 to REC track with the PWG should the group be rechartered.
16:42:04 <Rachel> +1 tzviya
16:42:16 <dauwhe> ivan: let's give ourselves five minutes to discuss this.
16:42:21 <laudrain> q+
16:42:25 <liisamk> q+
16:42:29 <dauwhe> ... I would leave out the last sentence
16:42:32 <dauwhe> laudrain: yes, please
16:42:42 <dauwhe> ivan: or say the BG will discuss this again in a year
16:42:45 <dauwhe> laudrain: yes
16:42:56 <dauwhe> liisamk: six months. Let's revisit in the summer.
16:43:06 <dauwhe> ivan: how about TPAC?
16:43:16 <dauwhe> liisamk: I was hoping before TPAC to use TPAC time well
16:43:54 <dauwhe> laudrain: I don't agree with last sentence
16:43:57 <jeff> q+
16:43:59 <liisamk> +1 to dauwhe
16:44:03 <laudrain> ack laud
16:44:04 <liisamk> ack liisamk
16:44:07 <ivan> ack liisamk
16:44:11 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:44:14 <ivan> ack jeff
16:44:40 <dauwhe> jeff: I assume where tzviya is coming from, she wants a focused schedule for the WG, and doesn't want it to be interrupted in six months
16:44:41 <tzviya> PROPOSAL: proposal: The CG will work on testing for <defined time period>. The WG will not work on EPUB 3.2. Test results will inform work on potential revisions of EPUB and possibly on WP. The BG will discuss REC track again at TPAC.
16:45:07 <dauwhe> ... as a practical matter, that's problematic for the WG. You can't change direction every six months.
16:45:10 <laudrain> q+
16:45:13 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Jeff
16:45:22 <dauwhe> laudrain: give it up until 2020
16:45:41 <dauwhe> ivan: because we are nearly out of time on this agenda item
16:46:01 <dauwhe> ... would it be possible for the three co-chairs (including Daihei) to come up for a proposal for the BG?
16:46:07 <dauwhe> liisamk: yes, we can do that
16:46:18 <dauwhe> ivan: put it on the agenda for the BG
16:46:27 <dauwhe> liisamk: does it need to be on Tuesday?
16:46:37 <dauwhe> ivan: I would prefer that we deal with this on Tuesday.
16:46:57 <dauwhe> ... we will have discussions anyway in the WG, but this kind of scoping are taking a lot of energy and time in the WG
16:47:01 <dauwhe> liisamk: OK
16:47:01 <garth> q?
16:47:07 <laudrain> ack laud
16:47:11 <dauwhe> ivan: we have to more agenda items
16:47:16 <dauwhe> ... let's go to Karen first
16:47:23 <dauwhe> ... because it's time-critical
16:47:24 <ivan> Topic: NYC meeting
16:47:31 <dauwhe> Karen: thanks ivan
16:47:58 <dauwhe> ... tzviya had mentioned that since the AB was in NYC on January23-24, that would be a good time to get the pub community together
16:48:13 <dauwhe> ... there will be a meetup on Jan 23 from 6 to 9PM
16:48:29 <dauwhe> ... Google has offered some sponsorship
16:48:44 <dauwhe> ... and we have a venue from our W3C friend in NYC
16:48:47 <Karen> https://www.mcny.edu/
16:48:59 <dauwhe> ... there's a venue at Metropolitan College of New York
16:49:20 <dauwhe> ... the challenge is, we need $500 more, preferably $1000
16:49:27 <dauwhe> ... we have many new members in NY in the BG
16:49:43 <dauwhe> ... this is an appeal to see if we can get some money
16:49:46 <ivan> q?
16:49:53 <liisamk> q+
16:49:57 <ivan> ack liisamk
16:50:05 <dauwhe> liisamk: Karen, has this become more a recruiting event?
16:50:29 <dauwhe> Karen: no. It's a conversation with the AB, and to bring the community together. I'm just mentioning we have some new members to invite.
16:50:36 <ivan> q?
16:51:08 <ivan> Topic: EPUBCheck funding
16:51:32 <dauwhe> George: we had talked about restarting fundraising in the new year, when people have new budgets
16:51:34 <laudrain> q+
16:52:08 <dauwhe> ... right now, everyone is swamped after the holidays. If we give people a week or two to clear out their inboxes, we could send out a reminder at the beginning of February
16:52:25 <dauwhe> ... we can let people know how we're doing. We're about halfway there.
16:52:32 <ivan> ack laudrain
16:52:36 <dauwhe> laudrain: I support completely the idea
16:52:44 <dauwhe> ... some companies have been waiting
16:52:56 <dauwhe> ... I propose to have a post in W3C blog
16:53:12 <dauwhe> ... with the idea we are only at the middle of the bridge :)
16:53:13 <ivan> q?
16:53:44 <dauwhe> Daihei: Bill, how about the external coordination task force to remind people we've already reached out to. I can do that in Japan.
16:53:53 <dauwhe> Bill_Kasdorf: that makes a lot of sense. Give it another push.
16:54:15 <dauwhe> ... I'm traveling right now. I'll be in EU but I can that done a little later.
16:54:22 <Rachel> q+
16:54:26 <dauwhe> ... Daihei, you can go right ahead
16:54:42 <dauwhe> George: there will be an alpha out next week, we could coordinate with the EPUBCheck releases
16:55:04 <Rachel> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iAGhd99aVhXAUCQwITWZwAHARQbnSet9IUFTj_DbqdM/edit#gid=0
16:55:04 <ivan> ack Rachel
16:55:05 <dauwhe> Rachel: we were trying to track who we were approaching
16:55:12 <dauwhe> ... we have a spreadsheet (link above)
16:55:21 <dauwhe> ... there are orgs we haven't contacted yet
16:55:35 <dauwhe> ... add info and volunteer!
16:55:44 <dauwhe> ... we've had a lot of success this way
16:55:44 <laudrain> Thank you Rachel !
16:55:48 <Karen> +1 Rachel
16:55:54 <ivan> q?
16:56:03 <dauwhe> ivan: OK. I think that's it. We have five more minutes.
16:56:10 <dauwhe> ... let's adjourn for today.
16:56:15 <dauwhe> ... thanks everyone!
16:56:45 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:56:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/01/11-pbgsc-minutes.html ivan