Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

I definitely prefer the more active titles. "Vision and Background" is
excellent.

-Heather

On 4/19/17 7:21 AM, Bill McCoy wrote:
>
> +1 to the renaming of the IG documents.
>
>  
>
> It’s a nit but I would recommend naming that captures a bit more
> actively the spirit of the documents, since terms like “reflections”,
> “contemplating”, “deliberations” (not to mention “ruminations”) are
> pretty passive and really don’t connote anything. E.g. I could
> suggest: “Envisioning Web Publications”, or “Motivation and
> Requirements for Web Publications”, or “Vision and Background for Web
> Publications” or something along those lines that would give someone
> reading the title a bit more of a clue as to the content.
>
>  
>
> --Bill
>
>  
>
> *From:*Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:46 AM
> *To:* Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
> *Cc:* Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>; W3C
> Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>; W3C Digital
> Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group
> Charter"
>
>  
>
> I would propose three things.
>
>  
>
> - The IG is winding down anyway, and I do not think it would work on
> its document in the upcoming time. I would propose that IG publish
> these documents as IG Notes as soon as possible (which will mean after
> the AC meeting when the publishing moratorium is over).
>
> - To avoid any further misunderstandings I would prefer the IG
> change/modify the title of the documents rather than change the
> charter. "Ruminations on Web Publications" sounds sexy, but I am not
> sure it is appropriate for a W3C /TR document. 
>
> - Add some texts on the fact that the WG has the possibility to change
> the names if it wishes to do so.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> As for 'ruminations'…
>
>  
>
> - "Technical reflections on Web Publications"
>
> - "Contemplating Web Publications"
>
> - "Deliberations on Web Publications"
>
>  
>
> The input of a native Anglo-Saxon may be helpful here…
>
>  
>
> Ivan
>
>  
>
>  
>
>     On 19 Apr 2017, at 15:35, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com
>     <mailto:garth@google.com>> wrote:
>
>      
>
>     Okay, got it.
>
>      
>
>     I'll leave our Charter Master Extraordinaire, Ivan, to propose any
>     clarifying language.  :-)
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>        Garth  
>
>      
>
>     On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Glazman
>     <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com
>     <mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>> wrote:
>
>         Le 19/04/2017 à 14:52, Garth Conboy a écrit :
>
>         > We could, as you suggest in your other mail, decide to find
>         another name
>         > for the input document or deliverables but we all know that such
>         > discussion could lead to a long bike-shedding match -- I
>         fear that.
>         > Instead, if necessary, we can add to the charter something
>         making it
>         > clear that the WG has the possibility (as all WG-s have by
>         default) to
>         > change the terms used in the deliverables and/or completely
>         ignore the
>         > input documents, if that makes things clearer.
>
>         I have no religion here. Only thing I know if that even a
>         geeky reader
>         like myself found "Web Publications" and "Web Publications" on
>         one hand,
>         "Portable Web Publications" and "Portable Web Publications" on the
>         other, rather confusing. Your reading of the prose, where
>         documents
>         are different and WG ones are not supposed to be the REC track
>         of the
>         IG ones, was 100% unclear to me. If it was unclear to me, it's
>         probably
>         unclear to some others too...
>
>         </Daniel>
>
>      
>
>  
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>  
>