RE: F2F agenda ideas

I’ve had a bit more of a chance to think through how we can come away from the F2F with specific action items, and I’ve been thinking about what the SC and the Publishing Activity with has been struggling with the most for the past few years. Here are a few thoughts.


  *   The IDPF was fundamentally a standards body. Markus did more than many people realized in leading the technical work. He had a remarkable skill of leading people to think that they had come to the conclusion that they wanted to create change on their own. When it came down to the nitty gritty work, it was done by maybe 15 people. The same 15 people (with a few changes) are still doing the work today. Matt Garrish has been the editor of the EPUB specs for years. Without Matt, EPUB would not exist as it does today.


  *   Let’s consider what the role of IDPF board was and how that transitions into leadership in the BG and whether we need an SC. The IDPF board approved spec work but was not involved in spec writing. Some members of the board participated in the WG, but that was by choice. The board worked on fiscal issues, conference planning, and proposed new work at times. Perhaps the role of the SC/ BG leadership should focus more on building community? We have seen successful events in Fukuoka. Should we be looking at workshops? Webinars? Community building? What would conferences look like? Who will fund them? How often? How do we avoid competing with an already competitive conference industry? (ebookcraft, EDRLab’s summit, etc). Building community can also mean learning to fit in with the W3C culture. That is new for many of us.


  *   The SC is not functioning as a committee. We are several people who often have conflicting goals with no leader to provide vision or help us to come to agreement about the goals. Thus, the Publishing Activity has no clear goals and no clear direction. Should we appoint a chair? Should we close the SC? The SC and BG often overlap significantly. Let’s consider why and how to manage this.




  *   One of the biggest conflicts is that there is no consensus on whether EPUB should be REC track or even whether EPUB should be rigorously tested. If we don’t make EPUB a REC (at some point), then why are we in the W3C? What is the future of EPUB if it can’t be treated as if it will eventually be a TR in W3C? Are we attempting to create a unique Process just for Publishing? Will surveying the community answer this questions?. Understanding the Process, the testing, what is possible, and what it will and will not mean for the existing EPUB Spec and the supply chain will tell us more. Coming to understand the reluctance to bring EPUB to REC track will help us. At the end of the day, we need to have a specific decision about EPUB and testing and EPUB and Rec track or we will be treading water for years to come.


Additionally, I am offering to chair the meeting (possibly with a little help). I would really like to make sure that we come away from the Face to Face with solid resolutions and concrete goals for 2020.

Thank you,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 2:48 AM
To: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: F2F agenda ideas

Thanks Tzviya,

Under the rec/not rec track discussion we may want to look at what Process 2020 may bring on the table for a possible EPUB work. I would definitely ask Ralph to address this (I do not think I would be accurate in this).

On a higher level, we may (and I emphasize MAY) choose to establish a somewhat HTML5-like model for EPUB3 under the new rules, with quick updates and new features, without going through the somewhat onerous process we have now. Because EPUB3 should (must?) be able to incorporate the latest features of HTML5 as well as CSS, a way to do that easily would be very advantageous. (I realize the current EPUB document makes some blanket statement on using the latest HTML5/CSS, but we have to consider whether this works in all cases.)

Ivan



On 8 Jan 2020, at 17:34, Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I have put together some ideas for an initial agenda [1]. I have added names to some topics but not all. Please add your thoughts and suggestions, and we can work through this on our next call.

I think it would be beneficial if we nominated one or two people to be chair for the day to help keep the pace for the day.

I have been asked by Wiley colleagues to invite Avneesh and Léonie to speak about Accessibility Awareness while they are here for the AB meeting. The timing that seems to work best for both of them is during the lunch break of our Publishing F2F. I do not want to impose on the meeting though. Will that work for the SC? I have not yet worked out the logistics of the talk, but Wiley will provide lunch for the SC, and if you are interested in coming to their talk, you are welcome to join us.

Thank you,
Tzviya


[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/12mOkAVcopnEA_-H1t_TQ0ocUKzgqeA1u-zcArPdsTss/edit?usp=sharing


Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704