RE: How to close things tomorrow...

Me too, +1 to Rick.

Bill Kasdorf

VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage

p:

734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>


From: McCloy-Kelley, Liisa [mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:08 PM
To: Johnson, Rick; Ivan Herman; Paul Belfanti; Cristina Mussinelli
Cc: Bill McCoy; W3C Publishing Steering Committee
Subject: Re: How to close things tomorrow...

+1 to everything Rick said

Thank you Rick!

From: <Johnson>, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com<mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 12:01 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>, Paul Belfanti <pbelfanti@gmail.com<mailto:pbelfanti@gmail.com>>, Cristina Mussinelli <c.mussinelli@360publishing.it<mailto:c.mussinelli@360publishing.it>>
Cc: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org<mailto:bmccoy@w3.org>>, W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org<mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: How to close things tomorrow...
Resent-From: <public-publishing-sc@w3.org<mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 12:01 PM

We should close some issues tomorrow, before I go down under... But we may have to have some executive decisions.

- Issue #15 (DRM): David Baron has not (yet) reacted. If he reacts negatively, we should probably drop this whole thing, although I agree that Graham's proposal is sensible. But it may not be worth it. If he does not react then... I am not sure how to proceed. Maybe a separate ping by email would be good, now coming from somebody else (dbaron@dbaron.org)<mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org)>.

I just sent the below to him [1].

- Issue #24, part 1 (terminology), I think there is a clear statement on the issue list that we would not change the terminology

Agreed.

- Issue #24, part 2 (re-edited goal section), I would propose to go ahead with the shortened text even if Jonathan does not reply, but I would feel more relaxed about it if somebody did review that text

Agreed.  I will review and comment.

- Issue #26, the re-opened issues due to Murata's question: I would propose to simply close it without further ado. It is a matter of explanation rather than anything else.

Agreed.


-Rick

[1]

We are trying to close out https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/15 that you commented on.  The current proposal is to simply define what out of scope means (by graham-bell):

Out of scope: DRM (for the avoidance of doubt, this means that the WG should not make any decision that would either require or prevent the application of DRM technologies)


As you opened this issue, would you be able to comment today on this proposal?  It had general agreement on the call yesterday, but we want to understand if this resolves your concerns.