Meeting minutes
<Ralph> previous 17-April
tzviya: EPUBCheck Update
EPUBcheck Update
Avneesh: In the new
timeline, milestone 2.1 completion was due April 30
… completion of the test suite
… Romain is on schedule
… there will also be a maintenance release
… because of the lockdown, the release will have to be
mindful of people not having the ability to test the release
… if there are any issues with the HTML checker, it
can be problematic
… we will be doing some testing with publishers and
retailers
… if that is successful we can do the release
… the localization in different languages has also
start
… we'll have different languages for the errors now
… and fundraising continues
tzviya: If there are any other volunteers for testing, please let myself or Avneesh know
George: Are we going to announce this as asking for volunteers for testing, or is it closed
tzviya: I think we have
enough testers internally, it's not a huge release
… we aren't going to publicise it
Avneesh: It's a maintenance
release, so we are just taking additional precautions
… we don't need wide testing
tzviya: Thanks
… Moving on
Next Steps for the "Future of EPUB" Survey
tzviya: Next item is the next steps of EPUB survey
<jeff__> Mateus++
tzviya: I hope everyone has had time to review the slide deck
<jeff__> Wendy++
tzviya: now we need to do
something with it
… we need to publicise this
<Ralph> Wendy++, Mateus++
<Ralph> EPUB Survey Results [Wendy, 24-Apr]
Wendy: I'd like people to read my proposed blog post
George: does that post point to a slide deck?
Wendy: it can; I didn't include one as I'm not sure where to host it
Tzviya: it would be great to publish this soon
jeff__: Blog post is
important, but in parallel we as a steering committee need to figure
out how to consume what the community thinks
… we can say this is input to the EPUB WG
… is it input to the charter or is this input to the
activity
… not everything in this survey is not input to the
charter, but to other groups
… I think it would be useful for us or a smaller group
to look at the results and determine what can be taken from them
… make sure this lands somewhere
Bill_Kasdorf: I agree with
Jeff
… I wanted to remind folks that even before something
gets into the WG, the CG should look at the
implementation/incubation
<Avneesh> +1 Bill
Bill_Kasdorf: We should make
sure this is systematic
… prioritize the feedback
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest opening GH issues
+1 to the CG taking up the bits of the survey that are about implementation/incubation work
tzviya: I was going to
suggest that some of us should begin opening GH issues for the items
in the survey
… we need to break this down
… many of them will end up in the CG
George: +1 to everything
that's been said
… we should have contacts associated with the
announcement of the results so people can contact them
… regarding the issues, this would dictate a
project/work plan
… there's many things the CG and BG should look at, as
well as the WG
… it looks like putting together a project plan, in
the form of issues, then we can label and organize it all into
projects/sub-projects
Daihei: Liisa and I
discussed this, these results are something that should be make open
and communicable
… to the global community
… the questionnaire was sent to many people
… and many people wanted to continue to keep in touch
… PBG will take the initiative to communicate on
behalf of the Publishing Activity
… we can take the feedback and then bring it to the BG
and other groups
tzviya: Mateus and Wendy did a lot of work on the data compilation, and Wendy wrote the blog post, maybe we should start there
Daihei: We appreciate their
work, we can use it as a basis for our communications
… we want to make sure the BG is the group to
communicate with
ivan: Minor additions, the
charter as of today
… it makes a reference to the original blog, we can
add references to the survey results
ivan: I worry about
confusing the messaging between all of the groups, the community does
have it own repo where we can store the issues
… for these specific issues
Publishing BG GitHub repository
Ralph: One of those rare
occasions where I have a different opinion from Ivan
… the BG has a GH repo
… and I think it makes sense to have the survey
topics/discussion areas and classify which group should look at them
… some cases will be clear and others won't
… can we derive issues from the slides
wendyreid: Yes, but it will be time consuming
tzviya: I think we can put everything in CG repo and farm them out, or in another and sort them out
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on "the BG doesn't have a GitHub repo"
Bill_Kasdorf: I worry about
the implementation of these features
… with the CG anyone can be involved
<ivan> the survey slides themselves
Bill_Kasdorf: recruit people
based on the issue
… I spoke to Rick Johnson recently
… want him to get into the CG and address specific
issues
… motivate people with specific problems
<Ralph> +1 to Bill -- and the blog post can [does?] say that :)
tzviya: I think that we all
have high hopes for where the CG is headed
… the topic at hand is what we do with the survey
results
… we all agree that we can turn them into issues
… who else wants to volunteer to create GH issues with
me
Daihei: Liisa and I can help
tzviya: I'm going to volunteer Mateus and Jeff X
<Avneesh> I can take care of accessibility issues
tzviya: hopefully the three of us can figure this out
<George> I am swamped through May 15, but can help with accessibility issues.
tzviya: we can give ourselves a month to work on this
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to discus labels
jeff__: Perhaps to overstate
the obvious, GH has great labels
… to the extent we can label them, we should
… it would help to organizing and putting things where
they belong
… we'll make more progress if the team makes some
initial decisions on sorting and then we can discuss
tzviya: We'll also have to
figure out which repo
… if we want to use the BG repo, we can discuss with
Daihei and Liisa whether the BG wants to use GH
Daihei: I think it could be used
<George> Perhaps labels would include task force assignments.
Daihei: Liisa is putting
together on the repo for the RS issues
… we can discuss offline though
tzviya: Is this all we should do for now?
Brainstorming on a "Publishing@W3C Open Meeting"
tzviya: We discussed having
an "open" publishing meeting
… blog posts are nice, but may not reach everyone
… we're in a period of big changes
<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> The idea here is to hold a meeting to which all CG, BG, and WG
<Ralph> participants are explicitly invited. Probably a webinar-style
<Ralph> meeting. Perhaps open to others in the wider community who are
<Ralph> not (yet) participating in W3C in some way. The content could
<Ralph> expand on the 18 March blog post (or post(s) if there are more),
<Ralph> addressing questions and comments from the Survey results.
<Ralph> The purpose of this agendum is to look for consensus on the
<Ralph> utility of such a meeting, collect ideas on possible content,
<Ralph> and (presuming consensus to proceed), get consensus on a
<Ralph> schedule and solicit volunteers for a Planning and Program Committee.
<Ralph> ]]
tzviya: Can we establish a community and how should we hold this meeting
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to provide some ideas
Wendy: I like the idea a lot
… I'll happily help
jeff__: I think it's a great
idea
… don't know if an hour will be enough
… the place to start would be acknowledging the
community for their contributions to the survey
… I don't know how comprehensive we want to be
… a basic overview of the result would be good
… explain how we are consuming it and the effort to
put it into action
… WG, BG, CG ets
… another way to get further interest, if we want to
ask them to provide inputs
… its one thing to just attend and learn things, but
we would love more input or feedback directly from people
… community participation
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to avoid webinar-weary, too long
tzviya: I've been hearing
about people getting weary of webinars
… I'm concerned about making it too long
Avneesh: The communication
instrument depends on the objective
… if we are looking to communicate our goals, a
webinar is fine, but if we want a discussion we might want something
different
… posting the charter didn't get a lot of input, but
conference calls did
… if we want feedback, then we should hold some short
calls
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on webinar vs. discussion
Avneesh: a webinar is appropriate if we're just doing a review
Ralph: Avneesh, do you have an opinion on what we should do?
Avneesh: The EPUB3 charter
is known and people know about it
… if we get into detailed discussions, it could delay
things
… are we comfortable with that
… if we want that feedback ,then let's do it
Ralph: Thanks, I had similar
thoughts
… strong +1 to Jeff about using the results
… we use that as the basis for whatever we do
… to that end it seems to me that there were some
misunderstandings about EPUB3 and the charter direction
… my thought was a webinar that focuses on that
feedback and addresses the misconceptions
… people are probably tired of long webinars, but an
informative one would be good
… we don't want to open charter discussions
Bill_Kasdorf: Back to the
original ask, I like the idea of a meeting people can participate in
… it's an unfortunately opportune time, everyone is on
zoom
… just call in and we can chat
… preceding that, having an informational webinar to
clear things up and provide information
… then follow up with a discussion
tzviya: Are you suggesting having 2 sessions
Bill_Kasdorf: Yes, it's hard
to get people to read things, but here's a 30-minute session on this
topic and then we can discuss
… to Jeff's point, we got great response, share it
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to comment on Avneesh's comments
jeff__: Ralph and Avneesh
mentioned what the goals are
… I think that the SC meeting in Feb, we concluded
that there's enough in the survey to move ahead with EPUB3
enhancements
… at a high level that won't change
… that alone is enough to move forward
… for me it's more the next level, we have all of this
input
… we have things to look at for the CG, new features
for EPUB 3.x
… some business ideas for the BG
<ivan> +1 to jeff__
jeff__: let's have a
conversation about that
… it lets us hear the emotion and everything from the
community
Avneesh: Thanks Jeff, after
hearing the other comments
… we could combine the approaches
… we should anchor this around the WG
… there's questions about backward compatibility, new
features, we should build the confidence
… review what the WG will do
… communicate the goals, encourage people to join the
CG
… in the CG we can plan what the group should do with
the interesting feedback
… move all of discussion to the CG
George: Totally agree with
Avneesh, logistically the CG, it's hard to have a zoom meeting with
30+ people
… it gets confusing
… maybe if we could sort the issues that come to the
CG and look at assigning them to task forces, then the task forces
could meet
… not just limited to the CG
… if you are interested in this topic, broadcast that
more broadly to the community
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on two communities
Ralph: Thinking on Avneesh's
comments different purposes and styles of communication
… maybe the one open meeting is actually 2 meetings
… one is an information sharing meeting, how we are
moving forwrd, what we are working on
… the other is a more traditional CG teleconference
… but open it more broadly
… make sure everyone understands the plans and we
provide a forum for discussion
… maybe we need different meetings for different
objectives
Bill_Kasdorf: This meeting
is for participants in the WG, BG, and CG
… how many people is that? Is that the audience we
want?
… is our number 30 or 100
tzviya: So this idea is
fairly new, haven't thought of the guest list, I thought it should be
open to everyone, not just members
… the membership doesn't have a count
… it's a large number
… we don't know how many would attend
… it can be unwieldy
… for this to be successful we'd need an informative
section, and then a discussion ,with someone moderating the question
… we would need to have a "host"
… we would need to sort out those logistics
<Ralph> the CG shows 35 individual participants
tzviya: my initial thought
would be presenting the goals
… including the survey results
… establishing trust with the community
… a webinar is probably the best way to do it
… if executed well
… we also need to take our time
… no rush, none of the groups are fully formed, and we
are in a lull, but so is everyone else
<Ralph> the BG shows 66 individual participants
tzviya: I don't want to rush
into this if we don't have to
… we don't need to make these decisions today either
… Wendy and I can put together a framework for this
… and we'll come back in 2 weeks
… AOB?
George: Everyone saw Apple's donation?
*collective yay!*
garth: tzviya often steps
forward to do these things, is maybe doing a few smaller sessions to
prove if this will benefit
… is there a way to complete some of the initial
issues and then do the remainder
… I want to see work that gets done and fosters
reulsts and saves work for Tzviya
… gives the CG something to do
… having a list of 150 issues is overwhelming
… give them a select list of deliverables
Ralph: Important point
… I had been thinking more about the conversation
… encourage the conversation via issues
<George> +1 to high priority issues brought forward
Ralph: no reason to burden a group with 100 topics unless they're clearly interested
tzviya: Thanks Garth, that's a good point
ivan: Get all your friends
to comment on the charter
… we need more feedback
… even thumbs up
tzviya: Kudos to Garth for the thumbs up!
garth: have a good weekend folks!