RE: meetings minutes

Hi Vlad,

Thanks for the note. Sorry you couldn't make it to the meeting.

We are attempting to ensure that your feedback and all feedback from others on PWE is reflected. I spent quite a long time reading through the emails from the last year, and I don't quite agree that we got to a point where we all feel good about the latest version of the draft. Despite best intentions, the group never had a call to discuss the issues, and the draft never had a legal review. The PWECG has every intention of picking up the work of PWETF, and we are in fact relying on the members of the PWETF to help us.

Because we are producing a document that can be used in a legal setting, not a specification, Ralph suggested, and everyone on the call agreed, that we approach proposed revisions with GitHub issues and documentation. This means that we propose changes based on research and evidence about why changes are needed. That does not mean we will discard the draft that you, Amy, Ann, and others proposed. It does mean that we have to look at why we are even proposing a revision of the CEPC.

I have asked all members to help document proposed changes based on the discussions last year in GitHub [1]. When we move forward with revisions, we need to be able to explain them to those not familiar with our history or discussions. Pointing to GitHub issues that document explanations is an excellent approach. I am open to other approaches, but we have decided that GitHub will be our main forum for work in this CG.

We welcome your feedback and participation.

Thank you,
Tzviya

[1] https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues


Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir [mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:10 PM
To: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
Subject: RE: meetings minutes

Hi all,

Thank you for remembering both my criticism and my contributions to the CEPC rewrite, but I'd like to emphasize that:

  1.  I did express an emphatic disapproval of the existing CEPC last November, and that was primarily the reason why I wrote the new draft (following the principle "criticize and contribute, not just criticize!");
  2.  My initial draft has been subjected to a wide group review and many revisions (eight revisions to be exact), where both the group co-chairs and the group members contributed their edits and ideas. The latest draft has all the revision history captured in it, and I believe we got it to a point where we all felt good about it and agreed that the legal review would be the appropriate next step.
  3.  It is my (maybe wrong) perception that the newly formed PWECG has no intention to resume the work we conducted last year - I tried to get a clear answer on my questions related to the status of the draft we produced, but got nothing. If the newly formed CG does intend to simply restart the activity and ignore everything we have already done in the past (meaning that the work we conducted produced nothing but hot air) - I am not so sure I see an incentive to continue as a contributor, I cannot afford wasting time and effort on something we've already discussed and, at least at that time, were happy with the results.
  4.  I did send my regrets.

Cheers,
Vlad

P.S. I do think it is a very worthwhile effort to resurrect the draft we created and see what, if anything, is left to be improved. We've come a long way from the very first version of it to the final revision, and in the process of doing it we discovered that the new draft was very much in line with the Code and policies other organizations have in place, both in wording and in spirit.


From: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:39 PM
To: public-pwe@w3.org<mailto:public-pwe@w3.org>
Subject: meetings minutes

Thanks for attending and thanks to Dave for scribing

https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-pwe-minutes.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2018_10_11-2Dpwe-2Dminutes.html&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Sc-ry7Q3xvBnomEBkMoE2_ivmrUn9t3iPURPqMYwR3mRAaAfoxAAQdIUO6oCmSDQ&m=GYizUYMBAXQiAjWGi8GtfPBJWoysidvLJLZHLkxIkxQ&s=kEAOZnIhgO3dKliMkgLCfSp05bM61vy3VXD22Zr2N_M&e=>

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>




________________________________

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here<https://us-spambrella.cloud-protect.net/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=1539279592-vnkTa93GHc35&r_address=vladimir.levantovsky%40monotype.com&report=1> to report this email as spam.