RE: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?

Rick, FWIW I don’t see our November 9 & 10 event as just “annual publishing geek gathering at TPAC” – that would be more the Friday afternoon PBG meeting… and I think that Liisa’s theme implies a “bigger” event too… and I would imagine we would plan other/multiple gatherings (and also that such gatherings wouldn’t necessarily be co-located with future TPACs) – so that would *seem* to imply “W3C Publishing Summit” by your criteria… but I don’t want to put words in your mouth….

 

--Bill

 

From: Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:10 PM
To: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>; Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>; 'Graham Bell' <graham@editeur.org>; 'Bill Kasdorf' <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Cc: 'PBG Steering Committee (Public)' <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?

 

My thoughts:

 

If Publishing@W3C is a ‘brand’ and an umbrella for what is going on in:

* The interest group
* The business group
* The community group
* The upcoming work group
* Conferences, summits, and other industry gatherings

 

AND… if we have more than one conference, summit, or other industry gathering annually, then I agree, the November event should be named The W3C Publishing Summit.

 

If the November event is simply the TPAC equivalent of the annual gathering of publishing geeks, then it should just live within the Publishing@W3C umbrella, as ‘the annual meeting’.

 

-Rick

 

 

From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr <mailto:LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> >
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM
To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org <mailto:bmccoy@w3.org> >, 'Graham Bell' <graham@editeur.org <mailto:graham@editeur.org> >, 'Bill Kasdorf' <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> >
Cc: "'PBG Steering Committee (Public)'" <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?
Resent-From: <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Resent-Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM

 

I’m for « W3C Publishing Summit » as it says to me (and to the publishing industry I hope) that W3C is taking care of Publishing as one of its activities.

That’s how I will sell it at least.

It says also that it is about Publishing and not exactly on spec writing…

 

IMO, our logo can still be « Publishing@W3C » and that event ice named as « W3C Publishing Summit ».

 

Luc

 

De : Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org <mailto:bmccoy@w3.org> >
Société : W3C
Date : mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 18:42
À : Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org <mailto:graham@editeur.org> >, 'Bill Kasdorf' <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> >
Cc : "'PBG Steering Committee (Public)'" <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Objet : RE: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?
Renvoyer - De : <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Renvoyer - Date : mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 18:42

 

Hi Graham, your logic is convincing (as indeed it was in London). And to take it a step further, this event is not merely *in support of * Publishing@W3C initiatives, it *is* one of the Publishing@W3C initiatives and as previously noted it will be the main thing we do this year that is other than spec development. 

 

But… the brand we really want to support is W3C as the real message is the intersection of publishing and the whole Open Web Platform.  And the agenda for the event is not by any means even  limited to the things going on at W3C overall because it has broader topics and goals. And, critically, attendees will not necessarily be participating in the *other* Publishing@W3C activities (they may or may not be interested in the work of development of Web Standards).

 

By analogy suppose EDItEUR had within its massive organization a Metadata division referred to as Metadata@EDItEUR, and was holding a conference about metadata, organized by that division as one of its key initiatives. I don’t think it would be likely that it would seem apt to call this a ” Metadata@EDItEUR Summit” but rather an “EDItEUR Metadata Summit”  since the main brand is after all EDItEUR and since the event will not be just about the work going on within this fictional Metadata@EDItEUR.

 

Anyway that’s how I’ve come to feel about it since you convinced me the first time in London…

 

And to not over-think it to me – “W3C Publishing Summit” definitely comes to mind much more easily than “Publishing@W3C Summit”.

 

Can others weigh in?

 

--Bill

 

From: Graham Bell [mailto:graham@editeur.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:09 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> >; Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org <mailto:bmccoy@w3.org> >
Cc: PBG Steering Committee (Public) <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?

 

I’m not sure anyone who is not already deeply engaged would read that much into it, Bill (K) – which suggests using whichever monicker comes to mind easiest.

 

However – at the risk of overthinking it -- the event exists to cement the idea that W3C is deeply concerned with publishing. The event is in support of the range of Publishing@W3C initiatives, and while we’re focusing on the event right now, it is not an aim in itself. I would say that the overall ‘branding’ and programme of Publishing@W3C as a whole is the most important thing to promote, and the naming of the event is perhaps the best opportunity to do that.

 

 

G

 

 

Graham Bell

EDItEUR

 

On 16 May 2017, at 20:06, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> > wrote:

 

I actually like “W3C Publishing Summit” much better. It communicates both that it is a W3C event and that its focus is on publishing, not that it is about a W3C-specific initiative. It has more a connotation of “W3C learning about publishing” or “W3C working with publishing” than “W3C telling you about its new initiative.”—Bill K

 


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: Bill McCoy [ <mailto:bmccoy@w3.org> mailto:bmccoy@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:42 PM
To: 'PBG Steering Committee (Public)'
Subject: does SC care if it's W3C Publishing Summit or Publishing@W3C Summit?

 

Hi,


Sorry I didn’t mention in our call, one more question I had for the SC (to consider or delegate to Program Committee)…

 

It has become clear in discussing this event that everyone refers to it informally as the “Publishing Summit” not the “Publishing@W3C Summit” and of course we need to refer to both W3C and the event in some communications, and I have personally found it awkward to write things  like for example to a prospective sponsor: “W3C is holding the Publishing@W3C Summit on Nov 9-10 …”

 

We said in London that the “brand” is Publishing@W3C so it should be the Publishing@W3C Summit but I am not sure we really thought it through completely.  Because to me this event is somehow bigger than just being about what’s going on at Publishing@W3C even though it is itself one of the things going on at Publishing@W3C. And for twitter I can forsee something like #w3cpubsummit being used over #pubatw3csummit…

 

Personally I would kind of lean towards after all calling this the “W3C Publishing Summit” even though I am not generally a fan of revisiting previous decisions the name has kind of the opposite of grown on me since March (I don’t mean a problem with using Publishing@W3C as the umbrella for our work but only the name as applied to the event in November). But maybe that’s just me…

 

If the Steering Committee is OK to defer the final decision on the precise name to the Program Committee that is totally fine with me. But since it was part of London consensus I thought I should at least ask the question and who knows maybe we have a consensus now. And if folks feel strongly that we should NOT consider changing the name (even if much of other things that were more or less decided in March in London are shifting a bit) it would be good to know that.

 

 

--Bill