W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > October 2016

Re: Collecting ideas from the broader community

From: Mike Perlman <perlmanm@me.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:25:38 +0200
Cc: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <2BA52097-40ED-4D62-BEC9-85833384B3DA@me.com>
To: "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>
Hi Dave

Note: I will discuss in depth the technical issues you mentioned separately and focus here on the issue of outsider participation.
But I think the group should recognise that the stakes are very high here. Too often, I have seen participants counsel that failure is a very likely outcome, but IMO failure would be a disaster with potentially dangerous repercussions. 

This project is not of marginal impact like, for example, CSS variables - it has universal significance.
Given this and the past problems outlined by Mr Hellman, I suggest that outsiders should be given a formal role and that the project should be scaled to pursue multiple tracks.

*******
> Speaking for myself, yes, I’ve been ignoring you, and that does make me uneasy.

And as you are a self-appointed leader, this behaviour sets the standard and perhaps the expectation that others should follow suit. Perhaps you haven’t realised that you justified ignoring me because I am an outsider and for no other reason.
And the goal was obvious - to strongly discourage me (and other outsiders) from participating and to denigrate outsider contributions without bothering to actually critique them. 

> "I have better things to do, especially if in certain circles my arguments/suggestions are dismissed arbitrarily.”

Just a few days ago this is what a well-respected EPUB technologist wrote to me in response to my urging him to participate.

> "I support your efforts, but i have no desire to waste my time on that bureaucratic s!!!.”
Another person’s comment...

> I don’t think the filesystem is the answer.

This your opinion and I recognise you are not alone. But it is also far from unanimous.
I would like to point out that the ex-co-chair of the group - way back when -  made positive comments about my 5DOC ideas. http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-dpub-minutes.html#item03

> mgylling: what about the 5doc guy?
> mgylling: you could do this with one doc and scripting

And several others have mentioned 5DOC here and in other platforms. In fact, when Mr Hellman mentioned 5DOC in a post several months ago, I made him aware of this mailing list and after his recent article, I directed him to the GiHub issues where he just made a contribution.

*******
And you are definitely not alone in spreading FUD on security:
>  I had no idea what the security implications were, but downloading something full of JavaScript into my local filesystem made me wary.


I just wrote a brief post about this yesterday - https://medium.com/@Mac2net/why-is-the-w3c-spreading-fud-about-the-file-url-63617153593a#.53qy1w768

*******
So the bottom line is as the lone outsider I have actually been doing quite a bit to get others involved but with mixed results. 

I think Dave’s efforts to honestly explain his POV is a great start and I hope he and others see my response not as personal criticism but as a sincere effort to build on that and I hope others are encouraged to add their opinions. 

Cheers
Mike


> On 19 Oct 2016, at 10:01, Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/18/16, 3:37 AM, "Mike Perlman" <perlmanm@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would be happy to answer those questions later on.
>> But IMO, the discussion should start with the group.
>> 
>> I am *officially* an outsider as I am unaffiliated and neither a member of the IDPF or the W3C.
>> 
>> And in the interest of openness, I have approached the leadership of both organisations to get some kind of sponsorship for my contributions, but I was either turned down or ignored.
>> 
>> Just last week I made a proposal to build a combined 5DOC and Service Worker system with WordPress as the backend.
>> I suggested using Mozilla’s Service Worker plugins for WordPress, which I have already tested.
>> Both ideas (5DOC and SW) have similar techniques for adding offline CSS and JS.
>> I was ignored.
>> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/110#issuecomment-253641014
>> 
>> Except I was heard, as a couple of official participants of DIGIPUB-IG just agreed yesterday to do some prototyping of SW (5DOC is apparently idea non grata). 
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Speaking for myself, yes, I’ve been ignoring you, and that does make me
> uneasy. I remember when I first looked at a 5DOC. I found a giant HTML
> document with an inlined copy of JQuery, base64-encoded images, and my own
> IP address. It was highly dependent on WordPress. It required a separate
> app to work on iOS, and didn’t appear to work on Android at all. I had no
> idea what the security implications were, but downloading something full
> of JavaScript into my local filesystem made me wary. I don’t think the
> filesystem is the answer.
> 
> But that’s not my biggest concern. This group is a community of people
> trying to work together for a better future for publications on the web.
> We’re very much exploring, experimenting, trying to learn from everything
> that has happened before, from XML to EPUB to the modern web. We value
> collaboration, sharing, respect. We value dialog over monologue. When
> someone repeatedly claims to have the answer, we grow skeptical. When
> someone routinely dismisses work done by large numbers people of obvious
> goodwill and intelligence, we grow wary. When someone doesn’t seem open to
> change or conversation, we tune out.
> 
> Yes, we want ideas from the broader community. But we also have a
> responsibility to evaluate those ideas, and decide if continuing to engage
> with them will serve our larger goals.
> 
> And yes, as a group, we should have been clearer about our response. For
> that I’m sorry.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Dave Cramer
> 
> This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2016 07:26:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:46 UTC