Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter'

Hi Leonard,

"a thorough review of these proposals" is probably the wrong phrasing. I agree that re-reading and re-tweaking the existing (P)WP documents would mostly be a waste of time. 

What I mean is that concrete proposals with normative prose need to be made, evaluated for their own merits, evaluated on how they fit into the rest of the platform, matured somewhat... in other words be incubated, **before** we can decide to put them on TR.

Some members insist that this incubation must be done in Community Groups prior to the creation of the WG. I am (infamously?) not of that opinion, and think incubation is perfectly doable within a WG, so long as the WG takes this incubation seriously and has the necessary community (which we do have). So, I think we should charter the WG, do so without deliverables (because we have not yet incubated anything), then members should make proposals, those that seem half way reasonable should become EDs, and only once these EDs are sufficiently refined that we can get consensus that they not only address the right problem, but also address it the right way, then we can decide to put them on TR.

So yes, we should start actual work, but no, we should not put it on TR just yet, nor agree to do so before seeing and thinking hard about the actual proposals.

So based on this, I propose this new re-wording (keeping point 2 and 3 of my last mail unchanged):

> "The requirements, concepts, and suggested deliverables listed here have been derived from the preliminary considerations of the Digital Publishing Interest Group (see, for example, the PWP-UCR document) as well as the experiences from the EPUB 3.1 Working Group of the IDPF, especially its work on "Browser-friendly Manifestations". Informed (but not constrained) by these, concrete proposals now need to be drafted, incubated, and evaluated on their own merits and on how they fit in the rest of the platform. As they reach sufficient maturity and achieve consensus (See <a href="https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/#criteria">Readiness Criteria</a> for guidelines), individual deliverables will be added. The detailed list, milestones, and updated publication schedules will be maintained on the <a href="@@@">group publication status page.</a> "


Would that work better for you?

—Florian


> On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:31, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> I, for one, have issues with the revised wording.  
> 
> I don’t believe that “a thorough review of these proposals…” is a mandatory requirement for us to move forward on the deliverables as we see them – in fact, I might argue that they would be an unwelcome distraction.   Mandating a process is not helpful.   The WG should focus on the deliverables – as the current Charter defines – and the process will work itself out.  
> 
> Leonard
> 
> On 4/25/17, 7:26 PM, "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
> 
>    Yes, in broad lines, this change would remove my objection.
> 
>    Now, in details, I would write it a little differently.
> 
>    * Your phrasing suggest that we need to agree on all deliverables first, then start. Maybe this will happen, but more likely in my opinion, we may reach consensus quickly on some deliverables (e.g. DPUB-ARIA-2) and take a bit more time to figure out the concrete proposals for (P)WP and EPUB 4. Not having full agreement on everything should not block us from starting on the things where we do have agreement. So here's a suggestion:
> 
>    * As we cannot predict how long it will take to reach consensus on each deliverable, having milestones does not seem useful at this point, and may even be counter productive as it seems to suggest that publication should be date driven rather than consensus driven.
> 
>    Concretely, I would:
> 
>    1) tweak the text you proposed a little:
> 
>> "The requirements, concepts, and suggested deliverables listed here have been derived from the preliminary considerations of the Digital Publishing Interest Group (see, for example, the PWP-UCR document) as well as the experiences from the EPUB 3.1 Working Group of the IDPF, especially its work on "Browser-friendly Manifestations". One of the first tasks of the Working Group will be to make a thorough review of these proposals and how they fit with specifications from other Working Groups. As concrete proposals are made, reach sufficient maturity and achieve consensus (See <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FGuide%2Fstandards-track%2F%23criteria&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1153d04e26d84fb24f5a08d48c4bd065%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287704672245455&sdata=dCNopqCO62SiZNieCwzggQFEJp5d6kOFRSW%2F3PBV3%2FQ%3D&reserved=0">Readiness Criteria</a> for guidelines), individual deliverables will be added. The detailed list, milestones, and updated publication schedules will be maintained on the <a href="@@@">group publication status page.</a> "
> 
> 
>    2) Rename the "Recommendation-track Deliverables" to "Suggested Recommendation-track Deliverables", and delete the introductory sentence ("The working group will deliver .... ), since it is now covered by the paragraph we just discussed.
> 
>    3) In section 3.3, keep the introduction sentence and the face-to-face meetings, but remove the document milestones.
> 
> 
>    Although the wording is a little different, I believe this is in agreement with the discussion we had during the AC meeting. Would this work for you?
> 
>    —Florian
> 
> 
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 16:06, Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Florian,
>> 
>> After our conversation at lunch, and assuming acceptance of the proposed changes already communicated around the objections raised by Daniel, does the below resolve your remaining objections?
>> 
>> -Rick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Replace in section 3. Deliverables, the first line:
>>    “More detailed milestones and updated publication schedules are available on the group publication status page”
>> 
>> with the following:
>> 
>> "The requirements, concepts, deliverables, and milestones listed here have been derived from the preliminary considerations of the Digital Publishing Interest Group (see, for example, the PWP-UCR document) as well as the experiences from the EPUB 3.1 Working Group of the IDPF, especially its work on "Browser-friendly Manifestations". One of the first tasks of the Working Group will be to make a thorough review, achieve consensus on, and document the final list, milestones, and the content of the deliverables of the group.  The more detailed list, milestones, and updated publication schedules are available on the <a href="@@@">group publication status page.</a> "
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/18/17, 1:30 PM, "Florian Rivoal via WBS Mailer" <sysbot+wbs@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>   The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
>>   Publishing Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for Vivliostyle Inc.
>>   by Florian Rivoal.
>> 
>> 
>>   The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
>>   supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].
>> 
>>   Additional comments about the proposal:
>>      Vivliostyle enthusiastically supports the creation of the Publishing
>>   Working Group, its high level goals and scope, and the general format
>>   proposed in the charter.
>> 
>>   However, we think there is an important flaw in the charter that must be
>>   addressed first.
>> 
>>   Web Publications outlines a vision of convergence between digital
>>   publications and the web. We absolutely support this vision, and hope to
>>   contribute to its realization, both by participating in the WG and by
>>   integrating these technologies in our products. Convergence of digital
>>   publications and of the web is central to Vivliostyle's mission as a
>>   company.
>> 
>>   However, to our reading, the existing Web Publications documents are a
>>   manifesto and declaration of intent, not a concrete proposal to address the
>>   problem.
>> 
>>   As such, we believe that (P)WP should be in scope for this working group,
>>   and that concrete proposals to achieve this goal should be made, and when
>>   consensual should be taken up as deliverables of this working group.
>> 
>>   We are however opposed to listing WP and PWP themselves as a REC track
>>   deliverable with dated commitments.
>> 
>>   If "Web Publications" and "Packaged Web Publications" are meant to stay as
>>   general documents outlining the vision independently of any concrete
>>   implementable and testable incarnation, we think it would be much more
>>   appropriate to publish them as WG Notes.
>> 
>>   If, as their proposed inclusion on the REC track suggests, they are meant
>>   to be concrete technological proposals, we think the inclusion on the REC
>>   track is premature, as we do not believe there is consensus on, or even a
>>   general understanding of, what the concrete realization would be.
>> 
>>   Our concrete proposal is to:
>> 
>>   - List WP and PWP as deliverables as Working Group Notes and continue to
>>   refine them as vision and requirements documents
>> 
>>   - Give the possibility to the group to take on new deliverables that help
>>   achieve that vision when they are consensual, possibly by including
>>   something along these lines in the charter (inspired by the CSSWG
>>   charter):
>> 
>>> The WG may create new modules within its scope to fulfill or support the
>>> vision outlined in WP and PWP. If no participant in the group believes a
>>> proposed module is out of scope, and the group has consensus to add it,
>>> the group may add a new module. If the participants who object sustain 
>>> their objection after discussion, a re-charter to clarify the scope may
>>   be
>>> needed.
>> 
>>   ~~~
>> 
>>   Independently from this objection, we also make the following suggestion
>>   (but do not oppose the creation of the WG on these grounds even if it was
>>   rejected):
>> 
>>   For the sake of maintainability and timely progress along the REC track, it
>>   is sometimes desirable to split a large specification into smaller modules
>>   (or to do the reverse operation). We do not think it is necessary at this
>>   point to decide whether to split any particular document into smaller
>>   modules, but it would be good to keep it as a possibility. We therefore
>>   suggest the addition of the following sentence to the deliverable section.
>> 
>>> Also, to facilitate timely progress on the REC track and for
>>> the sake of maintainability, based on consensus in the Working
>>> Group, it may split or merge its deliverables.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   The reviewer's organization intends to participate in these groups:
>>      - Publishing Working Group
>> 
>>   The reviewer's organization:
>>      - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
>>      - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
>>   reports.
>>      - intends to develop products based on this work.
>>      - intends to apply this technology in our operations.
>> 
>> 
>>   Comments about the deliverables:
>>      Vivliostyle develops Vivliostyle Viewer and Vivliostyle Formatter,
>>   respecively an interactive UA and a pdf-generating UA, with support for
>>   pagination and advanced typographic features based on CSS (and (X)HTML,
>>   SVG, MathML...).
>> 
>>   Vivliostyle's product provide an answer to Pagination
>>     https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2017%2FWD-pwp-ucr-20170309%2F%23pagination&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1153d04e26d84fb24f5a08d48c4bd065%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287704672245455&sdata=rF3RdLiplHgNTUOQy%2BzKv1O56pL%2BRD2aK3WT8NGxqNY%3D&reserved=0
>>   and also intends facilitate Off-lining and Archiving
>>     https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2017%2FWD-pwp-ucr-20170309%2F%23onloffl&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1153d04e26d84fb24f5a08d48c4bd065%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287704672245455&sdata=oOfXkaaagLaxeK0iW3Vovajf5Q20Eufvd0GOQ%2Bppzx4%3D&reserved=0
>>     https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2017%2FWD-pwp-ucr-20170309%2F%23archiving&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1153d04e26d84fb24f5a08d48c4bd065%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287704672245455&sdata=uesS5MhWmqSurrS9BsGMHCzmrfkM1QMFNxIgI6d8RlQ%3D&reserved=0
>> 
>>   We currently support ordinary web content as well as EPUB3 as input
>>   formats, and intend to support EPUB4 and other (P)WP formats as they
>>   appear.
>> 
>> 
>>   Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
>>   https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F33280%2Fpublwg%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1153d04e26d84fb24f5a08d48c4bd065%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287704672245455&sdata=ndpsEeCoC%2BWWFhM7v3IE3tYthxx%2FgiKq0iTLLF1pl4c%3D&reserved=0 until 2017-05-14.
>> 
>>    Regards,
>> 
>>    The Automatic WBS Mailer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 10:07:45 UTC