Re: Recommendation from the RFP reviewers - epubcheck

+1

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:42 PM Garth Conboy <garth@google.com> wrote:

> +1 to the committee's recommendation.
>
> And thanks to them for the review effort.
>
> Best,
>    Garth
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:40 AM George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello SC,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not shared the recommendation with the DAISY Staff. Should I do
>> that? Remember, I am concerned about any perceived  conflict of interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are going to conclude by August 27, we need to get rolling. If we
>> are to negotiate with DAISY, I would think that Avneesh and probably
>> Richard Orme, the DAISY CEO should be on the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have our next SC call scheduled for Friday August 24 at 15 UTC.
>> Normally UTC 14-16 works well for Avneesh. Right now my Thursday is looking
>> open.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 7:48 AM
>> *To:* Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>; W3C Publishing
>> Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Recommendation from the RFP reviewers - epubcheck
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 15:21, Dave Cramer <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> 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/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>
>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
*Bill Kasdorf*
*Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*

*Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
<https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
+1 734-904-6252

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