Publishing Business Group Steering Committee — Minutes
Date: 2018-07-27
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Attendees
Present: Luc Audrain, Dave Cramer, Tzviya Siegman, Ivan Herman, George Kerscher, Garth Conboy, Liisa McCloy-Kelley, Rachel Comerford
Regrets:
Guests:
Chair: Luc Audrain
Scribe(s): Dave Cramer, Luc Audrain
Content:
1. EPUB 3.2
Dave Cramer: CG 3.2 last meeting, start wide review
… sections to to review assigned to different people
… widespread to the entire eco-system
… 2 months process
… PBG to approve the final doc
all: reasonable
Dave Cramer: get commitments from people
… where will the report will be?
… liking to other doc like a11y specs
Ivan Herman: CG not published on /TR
… will publish it in the W3C place
Dave Cramer: in /publishing/EPUB…
Luc Audrain: Will you have a consensus call in the CG?
Dave Cramer: ask for a vote in CG meeting
George Kerscher: where to put comments ?
Dave Cramer: in CG, try to track issues and get consensus
Luc Audrain: there was a question on the mailing list about epub tests
2. EPUB Test Suite
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I think billk answered the query
Tzviya Siegman: I’m not sure I agree with billk’s answer
… there are two test suites right now, epubtest.org and epubcheck (?)
… we haven’t made an official decision
… has DAISY taken over epubtest.org?
… it’s certainly not part of PWG
George Kerscher: as we know, epubtest.org was a joint effort with BISG, DAISY, and IDPF
… DAISY is moving forward briskly with a11y testing
… but the mainstream testing is not updated or maintained
… we don’t own the domain, and we’re not paying for hosting, although we could take that over
… we’re still trying to sort it out
… BISG doesn’t know what their approach would be
… IEEE is interested in these kinds of testing activities
Ivan Herman: IEEE?
George Kerscher: they’re using EPUB for education and interactivity and need to do testing
… nothing formal, but we’re leaving the door open
… DAISY has been told to move forward briskly with a11y, and don’t let other things stop that
Tzviya Siegman: We’re all familiar with the problems of epubtest
… has anyone looked into automated testing?
Dave Cramer: conversation 2 years with Geoffrey Sneddon about tests for CSS
Luc Audrain: … need to continue for REC track
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: part of my perspective on why we didn’t get farther is that it’s hard to maintain and hard to automate
… it’s very subjective and visual
… particularly when you’re talking about reading systems
… and when there are differences between sideloading and ingestion
Ivan Herman: from w3c process point of view, there is no obligation for automated testing
… testing is an obligation, as is a report, but it doesn’t have to go through automated test harnesses
Luc Audrain: is that clear for you, tzviya
Tzviya Siegman: it’s clear that there’s not a home for non-a11y tests
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: we should ask what Ric is looking for
… we’re not clear on why he’s frustrated
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I can contact Ric
3. RFP on epubcheck
Tzviya Siegman: we have responses to the RFP. review commitee is looking at them
… the reviewers are Liza, Tobias, Brady, and Romain
… we will meet with them on August 9
… we want them to make a recommendation to the steering committee
… by the following week
… we will decide by the end of August
… we get a rec from them by aug 15
… decide on the 24th
… announce on 27th
Luc Audrain: are we still getting proposals?
Tzviya Siegman: no, it closed on the 15th of July.
… we received three proposals
… the schedules are really different
Tzviya Siegman: they are three very different proposals
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: are you anticipating a fourth offer that hasn’t been submitted?
Luc Audrain: no, we were expecting something from EDRLab, but they decided not to
… we are on schedule.
George Kerscher: is there any thought about negotiating, or is it just accept/reject?
Luc Audrain: I think it should be possible to negotiate
… we do want epubcheck to work with epub 3.2 as soon as possible
… we want 3.2 and epubcheck and epub2 sunset to be released at the same time, by the end of the year
… epub2 sunset doc is stable, we should propose to the PBG
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: do we have any thoughts about guidance for the committee about how to evaluate the proposals
Tzviya Siegman: I would prefer not to give guidance; that’s why we have a review committee
… We chose them because of their knowledge
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: my only worry is about them choosing something that we can’t maintain long-term
Garth Conboy: the proposals do talk about this
… and the committee does have the resources to evaluate that
Garth Conboy: re: negotiations; we shouldn’t argue about price; we could negotiate on milestones etc
Rachel Comerford: I agree with garth and tzviya
… what I see from this group is a recommendation
… so we can take their feedback and decide as a committee
… it’s ok if we have different priorities than the committee, but we shouldn’t try to influence things before then
Luc Audrain: I have confidence in the committee
4. epubcheck fundraising
Luc Audrain: we have a document with language. any comments? We need to comment before tonight.
Tzviya Siegman: no, this is not the first draft, luc
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: i want to follow up on the email about maintenance
… the way I read it, it doesn’t look like we’re asking for a year over year commitment
Tzviya Siegman: we should look to the future for a maintenance fund
… the proposals we have are not long-term
… I would love long-term commitments for funding
… maybe we want to change this for a long-term commitment?
Luc Audrain: I just wanted to say that I didn’t feel like the long-term or short term was clear
George Kerscher: looking forward to WP and EPUB4, I think we’re going to need the equivalent of epubcheck in that space
Dave Cramer: not ask for long term money before we can prove it’s done
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I agree with Dave, maybe we should put something in doc that we want to fund the next X amount of time–2 years?
… we will look for ongoing support in the future
Luc Audrain: that’s what I wanted to say
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: do we agree we want two years?
Luc Audrain: I agree
… we should say that the fundraising is for an effort that lasts for two years.
Tzviya Siegman: can someone propose language in the doc?
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I’ll do it
Tzviya Siegman: I need to give this to W3C comm team so they can prepare website
George Kerscher: there’s no mention of $1k
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: maybe a mention of $1k and say that no amount is too small
Luc Audrain: should we change or leave as-is?
George Kerscher: i don’t feel strongly
George Kerscher: are we going to post a thanks on a web site? Should that be in the doc?
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: that’s a good suggestion
… “contributors will be acknowledged on the epubcheck home page”
Luc Audrain: it should be added
… I had another topic but we already talked about epub2 sunset doc. I’ll look at beginning of next week and propose to BG
… do you have any objection to look at this once more?
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: it’s ok to look again
Luc Audrain: one more round, and we’ll speak to PBG in two-ish weeks
… a report from the road map task force
5. Misc
Ivan Herman: https://www.w3.org/TR/wpub/
Ivan Herman: the PWG has posted a new update of wpub, including manifest with schema.org
… we should announce in BG
Ivan Herman: then we can put this on the agenda for Tuesday
Liisa McCloy-Kelley: there should be an introduction
Garth Conboy: as we talked about the draft fundraising doc, we have 45k already raised
… we should ask people on this call if we can get some more commitments
Luc Audrain: I’ll send an agenda for PBG on Monday morning French time
… thanks everyone
RRSAgent: draft minutes
RRSAgent: make logs public