Publishing Steering Committee Telco — Minutes

Date: 2018-10-05

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Ivan Herman, George Kerscher, Tzviya Siegman, Jeff Jaffe, Liisa McCloy-Kelley, Rick Johnson, Rachel Comerford, Ralph Swick, RalphSwick, Bill Kasdorf, Karen Myers

Regrets: Ivan Herman, Dave Cramer, Garth Conboy

Guests:

Chair: Luc Audrain

Scribe(s): Karen Myers, Bill Kasdorf

Content:

1. epubcheck MOU and SOW

Luc Audrain: Revised schedule for EPUBCheck
… we have received documents, MOU
… and statement of work
… that we have been working on, Tzviya and I, that I sent you
… a week ago
… we had some technical questions from @ about reference to HTML checker
… formation is found that is ok
… for phases 3 and 4
… work for phases 1 and 2 is to make it validate EPUB3.2
… My hope is that we validate all together in PubSC
… the MOU and the statement of work
… are there any comments, issues, problems, issues with this document?

George Kerscher: The statement of work start date
… if that could be changed to October 7 rather than October 1

Luc Audrain: that’s easy
… if you all agree; or if you don’t agree tell it now
… any objections?
… resolution adopted, thank you
… more comments?
… Version 5 has some light modifications advised by my legal dept.; just some precisions on who should sign, change requests, how parties acknowledge validity of signatures
… that has been written
… in the end there was an issue about which is the final document that would prevail in case of conflict
… I understand that the last document is the one that prevails
… each document has gotten more precise
… so that last document should prevail
… the last phase of paragraph five
… was modified to say that the statement of work would prevail
… reference to the new HTML checker has been modified with recommendation from Ivan and DAISY developers

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to moving forward with MOU in last draft with start date change

Luc Audrain: I will renew my question; have you any issues with this document?
… There was also I would like you to discuss
… the fact that who is in charge
… which organization is in charge of these documents
… We were working until now that it was the Pub Bus Group Steering Committee
… Ivan, you had a question

Ivan Herman: It’s a legal question
… if there is a contract, the SC may not have the right to sign something like that
… I am asking this question rather than stating
… also, from organizations POV, the SC is an ad hoc thing
… on W3C org level we have the BG
… even if MOU
… more appropriate to have it signed with the BG rather than the SC

Tzviya Siegman: Wanted to add, in discussions I had with Wendy Seltzer, we cannot have W3C
… sign for monetary reasons
… I agree it’s awkward for the PG sign it
… maybe it makes more sense for one of the companies to be the signer

Luc Audrain: we have to solve this question
… it could be to ask the PBG
… next Tuesday we can present the documents and say we would like to sign on behalf of the BG
… give them some time to review
… if BG is not in position to sign it, it will take some time

Bill Kasdorf: Even the BG is a W3C activity
… is that distant enough legally from W3C’s concern?
… seems like a pretty amorphous group, the right group
… but hard to imagine there is a legal entity there
… maybe we should check with Brian O’Leary to see if BISG wants to get involved
… signing a legal document takes on some responsibilities
… having hard time imagining whether Wiley or Hachette wants to sign

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: same concerns Bill has
… opening up to BG extends schedule by a couple weeks
… we are in an awkward spot if W3C does not want to take legal responsibility
… I’m not sure how we convince anyone’s company to take responsibility if W3C does not
… then puts it to an outside organization

Luc Audrain: As awkward as it is, the Pub BG has. SC today
… maybe strange in W3C context
… but is there anything preventing the SC to sign that document?

George Kerscher: Who is the chair of the Publishing BG?

Luc Audrain: Liisa, Rick and I

George Kerscher: I would think that one of those three should sign on behalf of the SC and the Pub BG
… I think there is enough authority there
… DAISY is intimately involved in tracking the funding so we can see if there is insufficient funding for the next phase of work
… Right now there are enough funds committed that would allow us to get through the first phase
… we are happy to move forward
… I don’t who else would challenge the contract, but DAISY won’t

Luc Audrain: Today, it’s how the documents have been prepared for the Pub SC would approve
… for the moment it’s me
… i am not sure if you say exactly signed by the Pub SC or Pub SC and the Pub BG
… Another option could be signed by the three chairs
… of the Pub BG

Bill Kasdorf: picking up on Ivan’s comment with a disclaimer
… I wonder if W3C wants this at arm’s length
… maybe it’s better that the Pub BG signs
… removes it one step further
… maybe that works?
… it’s the same three and it’s done immediately

Jeff Jaffe: Not so much my recollection that W3C wants it at arm’s length
… the issue was more about the MIT overhead for collection of funds
… not sure W3C has to have it at arm’s length regarding the money

Tzviya Siegman: That is correct, Jeff
… if MIT’s name is on it, then there is something like a 27% overhead
… others don’t want to keep it at arms’ length
… Luc, did your lawyers have a problem with you signing it?

Luc Audrain: they took for granted, not questioning that the Pub SC could sign
… we had not raised this question until Ivan put the subject on the table
… I did not ask the question to my lawyers; they don’t know
… I don’t know terms on that subject
… my feeling is that the SC is something strange and some arm’s length from W3C
… we decided to SC would be the oversight committee and take actions on this matter

Ivan Herman: as I was stirring up the mud
… I have no problem with the SC signing the MOU
… as far as I understand
… we have no real juridical value because there is not a legal entity
… if DAISY is fine, let’s go ahead and do it
… I don’t expect problems
… lawyers are paranoid

George Kerscher: We are ok with it

Luc Audrain: We should decide if we are all ok with it
… are you ok to express that the Publishing Steering Committee would sign these documents?

Ivan Herman: I am o.k. with the SC signing it

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to “ok with that”

Ralph Swick: [Ralph abstains]

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Rick Johnson: +1

Bill Kasdorf: +1 to the SC signing

Luc Audrain: +1

Rachel Comerford: +1

Ivan Herman: +1 for George

George Kerscher: +1

Luc Audrain: So I see no objection for the moment
… Garth is not here
… and Ralph abstains
… So we would say that the Steering Committee is ok to sign these documents

Resolution #1: the SC is o.k. to sign the document

Luc Audrain: and are you ok if I sign these documents in the name of the SC?

Rick Johnson: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Bill Kasdorf: +1

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Luc Audrain: +1

Rachel Comerford: +1

Luc Audrain: I am ok, too

Resolution #2: Luc is approved to be the signatory

Luc Audrain: statement of work we change to 7 October; MOU we had
… there is necessity to say with last paragraph to say [@@]
… I will put today’s date, sign and send to Richard at DAISY

Bill Kasdorf: hooray!

Ivan Herman: yay:-)

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: thank you Luc!

Luc Audrain: the MOU I will send first and the statement of work immediately after
… I think this settles our decision as the Publishing Business Group Steering Committee
… thank you very much

1.1. EPUBCheck RFP

Luc Audrain: Did anyone send a formal response to EPUBCheck RFP?
… I do not know

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: If Tzviya did not do it, I don’t think anyone else has

Luc Audrain: Would you mind to do it, Tzviya?

Tzviya Siegman: I suppose I can; does anyone one to help me with the language

Bill Kasdorf: I was going to suggest it be one of the chairs

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: we’ll make him pay later [laughs]

Tzviya Siegman: I don’t mind doing it

Luc Audrain: I suggest that you do it, thank you very much

Tzviya Siegman: I’ll be in touch with you about your decisions on the vendors

2. Epubcheck fundraising

Bill Kasdorf: We have 7 pledges

Rick Johnson: FYI to the group, I expect to have the VitalSource pledge soon, and am working with the Core Source team to solicit contributions from all of their users

Bill Kasdorf: We have $39,020 pledged, although only over $1,000 or so received

Bill Kasdorf: @Tzviya: We are hoping to raise $150,000; this isn’t even close

Tzviya Siegman: if we don’t raise the money, what happens?

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: This is just going to take continuing effort
… This has been a long conversation for me within PRH

Rick Johnson: given the timing, many companies are in the decision point of deciding is this a ‘this years budget’ expense with unused funds, or a ‘get it into next years budget’ reality

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: The email from Graham Bell this morning pointed out that people think epubcheck is “part of the landscape” and expect it to be free.
… We need to address that perception.

Luc Audrain: External Coordination TF has in fact sent the appeal to the organizations we’ve identified
… At Hachette, I haven’t received the invoice yet.
… It’s important to get the invoices out promptly.

Tzviya Siegman: we received our invoice the day after we pledged.

George Kerscher: I’ll get Richard to send/resend the Hachette invoice

Luc Audrain: there’s no question in anybody’s mind that we need a high quality epubcheck

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: great to see a wide variety of contributors, including an individual kicking in $20. That’s great!

Luc Audrain: We need to keep the momentum going. We will have more information in the future when EPUB 3.2 is published.
… My motto today in France is to say EPUB 3 is what to do.

3. EPUB Accessibility to ISO

Tzviya Siegman: One of the members of the AB expressed concerned about the Accessibility submission to ISO which makes it sounds like W3C is not supportive.
… It seems as if the process is separate from the normal W3C process.
… We know we’ve been working closely with WAI and WCAG, but some of the wording was a red flag from that AB member.
… The perception was that the ISO spec would be a
… “a separate accessibility spec” as a standalone, which would be a red flag.

Tzviya Siegman: the unfortunate consequence of some of the misleading language is that it implies that the W3C is not working on EPUB accessibility.

George Kerscher: I don’t think anybody reviewed the document. We may need to ask for an amendment to clarify.

Luc Audrain: Every country member of ISO has to say yes or no and may comment.

George Kerscher: Apart from some language differences (e.g., musts and shoulds) I would like to see the language from both the W3C and ISO be identical.

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: Will Makoto be at TPAC?

Ivan Herman: I don’t think so.

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I suggest a two-pronged approach.
… (1) Add this to the agenda for our discussions at TPAC
… (2) Somebody should reach out to Makoto to address this language issue.

Ralph Swick: +1 to what Liisa just said. Is the exact text of the submission available to us?
… Supposedly a quote from that text says “there are no plans to create W3C recommendations for accessibility.”

Luc Audrain: “IDPF (International Digital Publishing Forum) started EPUB Accessibility. IDPF is now merged with W3C. But there are no plans to create W3C recommendations for EPUB Accessibility.”

Ralph Swick: This gives the impression it’s nowhere on our roadmap. We have to correct that. What is correct is that there isn’t current work underway.
… the sentence “But there are no plans …” is clearly subject to incorrect interpretations

Jeff Jaffe: It was useful for Luc to remind us of how the ISO process works.
… An important difference between how W3C sends things to ISO and how most other parties do.
… W3C submits Rec to “PAS” at ISO which means they’ve qualified our process and approved it.
… As a result, the deal we have with them is that when we submit something, it’s an up/down vote.
… There can be comments, but they are not addressed in ISO. They are kicked back to W3C.
… If you don’t use this process, then it’s an ISO process and an ISO document; ISO is empowered to make changes without the involvement of the original working group.
… This is an important difference.
… The AB member that raised the issue may have had this distinction in mind when raising the red flag about the submission.

Luc Audrain: There is an ISO TF in the PBG.

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to the ISO TF call

Luc Audrain: Just before or after TPAC I will set a call with that TF and Makoto and others to discuss this and see if there are any amendments or comments that should be done.
… I am in discussion with the French representative to ISO. I will encourage them to make some comments and to address this within France.

George Kerscher: The relationship of W3C and ISO is for Recs. The Accessibility document is not a rec. That’s part of the problem.
… We want to continue to develop the accessibility spec hand in glove with WAI.
… I wonder if Makoto put this troublesome sentence in as a stopgap measure to get this into ISO rather than discouraging that because they think further work is happening in W3C.
… I will coordinate with Makoto to vote yet but remove that sentence and have the understanding that future development will be done in the W3C.
… We should start with the existing PBG TF.

Ralph Swick: W3C’s access to ISO in the PAS submission only applies to Recs. I’m very interested in having the broader discussion with the PBG not just about Accessibility but also using the W3C process for EPUB 3 as well.
… It may be appropriate to let the current process from Japan to proceed with that one language clarification but to also pursue this larger conversation.

Ivan Herman: There is always the issue of what we are allowed to refer to and what we are not. The current doc can go to ISO because there is a current ISO standard for EPUB 3.01.
… If we want to update the Accessibility spec to 1.1, we get into the issue of referring to 3.2, but we need an ISO number for 3.2. That’s a long discussion.
… If we need that, an ISO for 3.2, how do we get there? This could come back to haunt us.

Luc Audrain: We will continue this discussion in the TF and on another call.

4. TPAC planning

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: What do we want to do with our BG call next week to prepare? What does the WG want to do to help guide the BG?

Luc Audrain: It will be difficult for me to attend Tuesday’s call.

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: Liisa can manage the call next week

Tzviya Siegman: here is the F2F agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mt9PTcOdmrCwIsgfxbGMGjwHlUsySU01I0D4oBkSbcA/edit?usp=sharing

Luc Audrain: We should definitely have this discussion in the BG.

Rick Johnson: I’m on PTO Tuesday, and may not have connectivity…. Lisa are you available?

Tzviya Siegman: We tried to organize the F2F agenda to make the whole day of interest to the BG.
… One of the features of the Tuesday discussion is a lot of focus on EPUB 4.
… There is an open slot on Tuesday morning for the BG.
… Possible topics: EPUB 3.2 implementation. How to deal with EPUB 3.2 and EPUB 4 potentially existing simultaneously. We really need input from the BG on that.

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: That sounds good. We can also get into the implications with epubcheck, and the question of why it’s good to keep your files updated.

Jeff Jaffe: Great topic, Tzviya, thanks.
… We’re good on EPUB 3 implementation in Japan, but we don’t have much representation on the BG.

Tzviya Siegman: we should ask Makoto and Daihei for input. Hopefully one of them will be on the call.

Rick Johnson: +1

Luc Audrain: We should have a call the week after Frankfurt between the chairs to prepare. Oct. 16-18. I will send a proposal.

5. Resolutions