Re: Publishing BG becoming a CG?

Liisa, Daihei, Cristina, et. al.

Thank you for your detailed feedback in this email thread as well as in 1:1 conversations during TPAC and further followup.

The three of you have clearly stated an important role that Business Groups, and specifically the Publishing Business Group, have in the W3C ecosystem.

From what you have shared I understand now that it is premature to change the Business Group to another form of W3C group.

I look forward to further conversation in the Steering Committee toward using the SC forum to enhance communication among all the groups related to publishing and, in particular, to take better advantage of the unique perspectives of those who come to the Business Group meetings.

W3C created the Business Group concept in order to gain input from those whose responsibilities are in the strategic directions of the respective industry and how those needs should be considered in the technical standards work. I am happy to work with you to increase that pathway with the publishing industry.

Regards,
-Ralph

> On Sep 9, 2024, at 4:27 PM, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> I raised this in the July meeting and solicited feedback:
> 
>   https://www.w3.org/2024/07/12-pbgsc-minutes.html
> 
> We certainly want to hear the thoughts of those W3C Members who feel that a Business Group serves them better than a “Publishing Business Community Group”.  I can list pros and cons but I would not care to speculate on what those W3C Members feel.
> 
> Regards,
> -Ralph
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2024, at 3:37 PM, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa (she/her) <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ivan and SC- 
>>  
>> So this email is indicative of perhaps a bigger problem that the SC should address. 
>>  
>> I don’t know what meeting Ivan is referring to. From my notes (and our minutes) I don’t think the SC as a group ever discussed this beyond a passing mention perhaps in our Aug meeting. We definitely as a group did not decide anything or have a conversation directly with the PBG Co-Chairs about the pros/cons of moving from a BG to a CG. So when this email went out, the PBG co-chairs were all a bit taken aback. 
>>  
>> The PBG co-chairs have concerns about what this means for our business group folks who have full memberships, particularly our Japanese members, and whether that has been considered—it is not just a matter of losing a few business group memberships, but a large contingent of full memberships that folks may not want to renew. And though we want more participation, we don’t necessarily think that participation from just anyone is the answer. It warrants further discussion. 
>>  
>> But the real thing that this points to is that there are several places where our communication across our work here is not adequate.  In our July meeting, we talked about Rick and Graham being asked to co-chair the SC, but it was never confirmed. Graham sent out an agenda for August, so I could infer that perhaps he had accepted. But Ivan’s note makes it clear that even he isn’t sure who is running this group now. This is not the first time something has been referred to and assumptions made that we are all on the same page without being in the same conversations. 
>>  
>> If there has been a discussion about the BG, could someone please tell us where? When? What the proposal and reasoning is? And where are we with finding new leadership for the technical work within the CG? 
>>  
>> And can we add improving communication to our agenda for Friday? 
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Liisa McCloy-Kelley on behalf of the PBG co-chairs
>>  
>>  
>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
>> Date: Saturday, September 7, 2024 at 5:44 AM
>> To: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org>>
>> Subject: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
>> 
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Penguin Random House. Please be extra cautious when opening file attachments or clicking on links.
>>  
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> at one of our recent meetings we discussed (and decided on?) the possibility to convert the current Publishing Business Group into a Community Group. The argument was that by declaring it, officially, as a Community Group, the membership fee obstacle would disappear, making it easier for anyone to join the group. The only downside is that W3C might lose some modest income, which was deemed to be acceptable. It would be good to put this issue on the agenda of the Steering Committee meeting of the 13th of September and make a final decision. (I am not sure who controls the agenda these days.)
>> 
>> The mechanics of converting the BG into the CG is something the W3C staff members will have to do. Hopefully, the change will be such that member of the current BG will be automatically be the member of the new CG (although that may not be possible, something Ralph and I will have to clarify).
>> 
>> However, there are some questions that we would have to discuss first, such as:
>> 
>> - Are we considering a merge of the current BG and CG into a new "Publishing CG", or do we keep the two groups separate with two distinct profiles?
>> - If we keep them separate, what will be the name of the new group? (Say, "Publishing Business Community Group"?) Do we want to also rename the current CG to make the profile clearer? (Say, "Publishing Technology Community Group"?)
>> - If we merge them, who will chair the new group?
>> - How do we explain the change to the current BG members? Do we want to use this announcement to make some extra CG recruiting, or, on the contrary, do we downplay the change as a purely administrative step?
>> - What other communication steps should we make, if any?
>> 
>> Would it be possible to get these discussed, and decide upon, next Friday, so that we can move on with the practicalities?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>