Re: Notes on yesterday's SC meeting

+1

We ask explicitly for AC's consent to possible class 4 changes in
Publication Manifest, Audiobooks and LPF. Afterwards, we define a list of
issues to be tackled by the WG and mention two additional ones. Does this
preclude taking up other issues in the EPUB core specifications that were
not explicitly mentioned in this charter, especially if they might be class
4 changes, but wouldn't break backwards compatibility?

Best,
Wolfgang

Am Sa., 12. Okt. 2024 um 17:30 Uhr schrieb <kerscher@montana.com>:

> +1, and Thank you Ivan for doing the PR and announcements next week.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@vitalsource.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2024 8:45 AM
> *To:* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>; W3C Publishing Steering Committee <
> public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Notes on yesterday's SC meeting
>
>
>
> Thank you Ivan, and my apologies to the SC.  I had this on my list to
> bring up, and overlooked it during the meeting.
>
>
>
> Please respond with a +1 if you agree with announcing the new charter
> work, -1 if you disagree.
>
>
>
> +1 from myself.
>
>
>
> *Rick Johnson* | *Co-Founder and Vice President of Solutions Engineering
> and Accessibility*
>
> VitalSource Technologies, LLC
>
> get.vitalsource.com  <https://get.vitalsource.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Date: *Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 12:25 AM
> *To: *W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Notes on yesterday's SC meeting
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> my apologies to have missed yesterday's call; I had some family programs
> that took higher priority.
>
>
>
> Having read the minutes[1] I have an important question regarding the new,
> proposed, WG charter[2]. Per the official W3C process, the W3C is supposed
> to announce the AC about the work on the new charter, asking for comments.
> (This is accompanied by the creation of a new work item in our strategy
> team.) My question is: do the members of the SC see any reason in the
> preliminary version of the charter[1] for not doing that? (Knowing that the
> charter will be the subject of many changes due to the issues and reviews.)
>
>
>
> If the SC is fine with this, I may merge the open PRs[3] (unless there are
> objections on those) early next week and go ahead. Once it is announced to
> the AC, we may want to forward the official announcement to the BG and the
> CG as well, explicitly asking for their contributions. (I am happy to do
> that.)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2024/10/11-pbgsc-minutes.html
>
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/publ-maintenance-wg-charter/
>
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/publ-maintenance-wg-charter/pulls
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
>
>
>