Publishing Steering Committee Telco — Minutes

Date: 2018-12-14

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Tzviya Siegman, Jun-ichi Yoshii, Wendy Reid, Rick Johnson, Luc Audrain, Karen Myers, Rachel Comerford, Ivan Herman, Dave Cramer, Bill Kasdorf, Jeff Jaffe, Liisa McCloy-Kelley, George Kerscher, Daihei Shiohama

Regrets: Garth Conboy

Guests:

Chair: Luc Audrain

Scribe(s): Wendy Reid

Content:

1. Steering Committee configuration

Luc Audrain: 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

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I believe that Garth had reason to continue this configuration until after TPI transition
… I think that that makes sense and we need to have a discussion of whether there needs to be a change

Jeff Jaffe: I think there are currently three topics on the table
… broader than the coordination of chairs
… I think the current configuration should be kept until we solve the three issues
… 1. the TPI conversion
… 2. have we come to ground on the evolution of EPUB 3.2 re: the rec track and roadmap
… 3. are we going ot use this call to plan for the meeting with the AB in January

Luc Audrain: Thanks Jeff
… With Rick and Liisa we have a different call for preparing agendas for the BG
… until the end of the TPI agreement we should continue having the same group
… That makes clear path until the end of January
… speaking of next calls we won’t have the next one until Dec 28 ,we should cancel for the holidays

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: +1 to canceling SC call on the 28th

Luc Audrain: the next call would be the 11 of January, then the 25th
… that is my proposal

2. EPUB 3.2 as Rec?

Rick Johnson: Just wanted to comment on Jeff’s point on 2.
… 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
… we have agreed that there is no need to pursue the rec track now

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: 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
… 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
… many of us feel we would not be changing anything substantial, until we get there we cannot convince them
… we move forward with testing

Jun-ichi Yoshii: +1 to liisa

George Kerscher: 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.

Daihei Shiohama: +1 to liisa as well

Tzviya Siegman: I was going to say something similar to George, Garth meant that we need to have something called the SC for legal reasons
… in response to Liisa and Rick, I did not understand it that way,
… ISO was a side benefit, the benefit was having a rec-track spec
… we would still proceed with publishing 3.2 as a note and it would go out with epubcheck in march
… and continue with the process in the WG, and it would bolster it in later life

Rachel Comerford: +1 tzviya

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: 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
… 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
… is that the priority now?

Rachel Comerford: 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
… why are we paying for W3C participation if we just shipped something to ISO instead
… also how do I convince TPI members to become W3C members when they should apparently just join ISO instead

Bill Kasdorf: countries are ISO members and NISO is the organization that represents the US in ISO

Rachel Comerford: 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
… it is not our responsibility to give into misconceptions about the work

Dave Cramer: I have said this before, rec track for 3.2 is not a goal, but is possibly a means towards a goal
… I want EPUB to be better, there are significant existing issues with EPUB
… what this group needs to do is figure out what rthe future of EPUB looks like
… some seem to see 3.2 as the end of the line
… there are significant changes to EPUB that would improve people’s lives a lot, like allowing for HTML

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!

Dave Cramer: the CG is diving into the testing process, Wendy provided a framework, others have offered to assist with tests, I have some written
… how do we get from here to our future? Rec track might be a way to do it, but it’s a step along the way

Daihei Shiohama: 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 compatibility
… if there is any chance of change, we need to figure out the features in danger of being reconsidered
… the business is ongoing and we cannot stop it

Jun-ichi Yoshii: +1 to Daihei

Daihei Shiohama: 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

Luc Audrain: As Liisa emphasized, the important part of the rec track conversation is the timing, and the changing.
… as Daihei said we do business with EPUB, and the business should not be in danger of changes because of the rec track process
… but we do support the CG testing and bug reporting so that we may improve the interoperability of EPUB 3.2
… even if its being kept in the note from the CG
… 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
… it’s a strong endorsement that its a W3C report and supported by the W3C and published within it
… it’s supported by epubcheck and financed by the BG fundraising efforts
… and the Publishing@W3C effort
… it is the most important part, and important to our friends from Japan
… we need to be able to continue to do business with EPUB/epubcheck as it is today
… 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

Daihei Shiohama: +1 to Luc

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: 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
… 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

Luc Audrain: +1 to audioPUB priority

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: without the testing we can’t assure people of EPUBs stability
… we can move to rec after testing
… 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

Luc Audrain: +1

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: and there is concern it would change after 3.2 is adopted
… ISO is important for certain parts of the work, Japanese gov’t is needed, it is important in Taiwan
… we can write w3c specs as w3c specs, and get them rubber stamped by ISO

Rachel Comerford: I’m not arguing about whether or not NISO is or is not important
… 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
… when we don’t actually have data from these users
… 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
… we can’t put statements out in this group about those people

George Kerscher: This is a pretty complicated discussion, an ISO spec does not require 2 implementations to be approved
… down the road becoming a W3C rec with implementations is a good option, but going through the testing and best practice process is good
… I also see IMS and QTI (?), how does this impact higher ed, maybe not for us but we need to get information on this
… I want to see EPUB3.2 adopted and embraced, even if it’s a CG note

Jeff Jaffe: 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
… I think Luc mentioned people would be happy if the work came from the W3C regardless of group
… 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
… but the argument that a note from a CG is as good as a WG recommendation is just as supported is not true

Tzviya Siegman: I have a few points to go through, this has become a heated topic
… 1. to the BG chairs, are you planning on holding a vote on the decision in the BG?

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: 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
… the 3 of us were in disagreement about where to go and spent and hour on hashing it out
… we brought it here for discussion
… we’re not saying no rec track, just not deciding by the end of the year
… 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

Tzviya Siegman: Why don’t we talk about (with the BG), since we’re publishing the note in March
… let’s discuss establishing a timeline for getting to rec track
… we need to manage expectations and perceptions, who is doing what work and where
… and if there is concerns that the WG will drop it, people need to step up to take on tasks
… this is also about writing about what we do, I have been in groups where every release is accompanied by a blog post
… 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

Dave Cramer: 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
… we get wrapped up in the little differences
… the industry has had it for a while, we have struggled with the messaging

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: So dauwhe maybe that goes to our communication, blog posting and communicating
… 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

Luc Audrain: 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
… it was a rec from the IDPF in 2011, we have been doing business with it for years
… we cannot forget that EPUB being part of W3C is a chance, a fear, and a risk for the publishing industry
… our effort as a BG is to explain to the industry that the work being done is for stabilization and interoperability
… for the industry its a benefit that it’s being working on by CG
… 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
… as publishing BG, we are thinking of the future and the future is web publications
… it’s important for the future of our industry
… and we have identified audiobooks as the next big effort
… if the BG has priorities to express, this is that

Daihei Shiohama: +1 to Luc

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?
… the WG would turn it’s attention to 3.2 and not EPUB4

Luc Audrain: It might even been something dangerous for the WG to have 3.2 as a rec, who will think about EPUB4

Tzviya Siegman: I would like to quote dauwhe, we chartered the WG a while ago, do we really need EPUB4 right now?
… 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

Dave Cramer: Perhaps another way to phrase my question is, what is EPUB4?
… we have not been clear on that
… we think of it as a derivative of WP, what does that mean? What does it look like?
… 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
… EPUB3 is still not full adopted
… if we have WP or EPUB4 what is the argument for implementing them?

Jeff Jaffe: So I think tzviya and dauwhe are asking the roadmap question for EPUB
… 2 years ago we thought that EPUB4 is he best roadmap, but we are now not sure about the timeframe or content
… 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
… this long dragging question of 3.2 is not getting resolved (or is), but it’s taken us away from the roadmap question
… a question for the SC, where does the roadmap question take place, in the SC, BG, or WG
… and don’t ask if it’s the champion as we don’t have one

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I think Jeff is right, it is the key question
… it comes back to timing
… we had a lot of pressure at the beginning of 2018 to solidify 3.2, validate it, resolve it with epubcheck
… as of the fall we realized the overall direction is not realized and rec track might be a possibility
… the roadmap question is for the BG, the WG, and the SC together
… 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
… here is how we build a plan, but we need to carefully word it, and it’s easy to take a survey and get data that is unhelpful

3. Ingram/VitalSource’s status and co-chair position

Rick Johnson: 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
… we will also need a third chair for the BG
… 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
… 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
… 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

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: I understand why not the full, but why not BG membership?

Rick Johnson: I am still trying to stay involved with BG, we are discussing it
… a question for Jeff and team, does my membership end with TPI or the calendar year, I am still having that conversation

Luc Audrain: In practical terms, how will this take place? What is the process to find a new chair for the BG? What are the steps?

Rick Johnson: 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

Luc Audrain: Inside the page of the PBG at W3C, I assume there is work to do?
… thank you Rick, and we appreciate your help

Tzviya Siegman: Are you looking for the logistics Luc?

Luc Audrain: 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 instead of pure technical issues
… do you know tzviya? Or can Ivan help?

Tzviya Siegman: The chair is appointed, Ivan can help, but you and Liisa should discuss?

4. Meeting with the AB

Tzviya Siegman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ri-6KT5Kfg5HPYzKTKvlWUswi4dgz3UGd7jrpivxXE/edit?usp=sharing

Tzviya Siegman: I want to take a moment to remind everyone of the event in January
… I’ve started discussions on food and drink with Liisa and Garth
… we don’t have a lot of registrations, the event is January 23rd in PRH in New York
… I’ve confirmed most of the speakers
… start with casual food time, then some panels on publishing and W3C
… more tips than instructions
… it would be great to have more people come!

Karen Myers: No outreach has been done, Liisa and I will catch up on Monday
… my sense is that to include BG, WG, TPI, and interested community in Manhattan
… would the group also see value in adding a dial-in number, the time would permit Japanese participation
… or would that be too difficult and this is the first in a few events

Jeff Jaffe: 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
… does it start becoming more scripted/formal if we dial in

Liisa McCloy-Kelley: To your point, I think the intimacy of the event is hard to do a call in, plus the room I’ve chosen

Tzviya Siegman: So this is an in-person event only

Luc Audrain: I haven’t had any objection to cancelling the call on the 28th, so we will reconvene on Jan 11 in 2019! Happy holidays!