- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:03:57 +0100
- To: public-epub3@w3.org
- Cc: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ian@w3.org>
A second point to discuss is the relationship between CG and "the future WG", with the BG above. First things first, the WG still does not exist and is not proposed yet to ACs. So the future of EPUB is nowhere at W3C yet. Second, while incubation through CGs seems to be the 21st century's panacea at W3C, we do the contrary for EPUB that is a new activity inside the Consortium... The CG will focus on maintenance almost only, will be closely controlled by a BG that does not exist yet, and all new work will be incubated and handled in a WG that does not exist yet either. My gut feeling is that this "architecture" is too complicated. The CG and WG memberships will have a large intersection, the BG will slow down CG's activity, and if it also controls the WG's activity, it will probably fence innovation. All of that at a crucial moment where former IDPF members have to adapt to W3C practices while W3C members also have to adapt to IDPF practices... As said in my previous message, I find this suboptimal. I think the whole EPUB activity should, for the beginning, be decided and done in one single place. After a much needed adaptation time, we would see how things have to be derived (or not). For the time being, the proposed architecture seems too heavy to me. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 14:04:30 UTC