Re: Recommendation from the RFP reviewers - epubcheck

+1

Ivan

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 15:21, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com <mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I'm impressed by the thorough and thoughtful work done by the RFP
> reviewers, and I am grateful that they took the time to do this.  I
> support their conclusions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:11 PM Rachel Comerford
> <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com <mailto:rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello SC,
>> 
>> The epubcheck RFP reviewers have written a recommendation based on the proposals that were sent for epubcheck updating. I've included the recommendation below for discussion either over email or in our next meeting.
>> 
>> Our goal is to complete the selection process by August 27th.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Rachel
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Steering Committee Members,
>> 
>> The RFP review committee has met to discuss our recommendations on how to proceed with the EpubCheck proposals. We have all reviewed the proposals separately, and discussed our findings as a group. Given limited guidance from the steering committee, we discussed what we felt was important for the ongoing effort and how the proposals fit those goals, in addition to their technical details.
>> 
>> Although the group received 3 proposals, we decided to consider the proposal from Suberic as two distinct offerings, one a complete rewrite, the other a continuation of the existing code. After lengthy discussion, the group rejected the idea of a rewrite in Python. While there was some support for a Javascript version, there were no proposals for that, and even then there was no consensus. For these reasons, we rejected the Python proposal.
>> 
>> There was significant concern around the Evident Point proposal. Consensus was that the time estimates were extremely aggressive and that either they would not be able to deliver on time, or were not planning on making as significant changes as the reviewers felt were needed. Specific examples of difficult to deliver items were one week for the API work, and two weeks for the test suite refactor. Given that, the group felt this was the weakest of the three remaining proposals, and the reviewers can not recommend accepting it.
>> 
>> Given the two remaining proposals, DAISY and the Java-based Suberic one, the reviewers felt that the DAISY proposal’s long time frame—with an EPUB 3.2 release front-loaded and comparable to the other proposals—was a feature, as it would provide better direction for the project over that time. Also, DAISY has an institutionally vested interest in the success of EPUB. Their proposal also explicitly addresses Nu HTML Checker work, and overall had the most detailed milestones. For these reasons we feel it is a stronger proposal than the one from Suberic. However, the reviewers also noted the strong EPUB experience available to Suberic and their immediate availability, and would like to urge that DAISY consider subcontracting some or all of the work to Suberic in the interest of creating a larger developer base for EpubCheck, meeting a timely release date for 3.2 support and shortening the overall development time frame.
>> 
>> 
>> Rachel Comerford | Senior Director of Content Standards and Accessibility | T 212.576.9433
>> 
>> Macmillan Learning
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>