RE: Publishing BG becoming a CG?

Hi,
 
I find that many groups have their own way of working, which is perfectly fine. We should not force the Business Group to do anything that is an unnatural way of working. I think we just need to define that way of  working and the communications around that coordination.
 
Best
George
 
 
From: McCloy-Kelley, Liisa (she/her) <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> 
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 9:10 AM
To: kerscher@montana.com; 'Cristina Mussinelli - Fondazione LIA' <cristina.mussinelli@fondazionelia.org>; 'Reid, Wendy' <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>; 'Daihei Shiohama' <shiohama@mediado.jp>; 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: 'Ralph Swick' <swick@w3.org>; 'W3C Publishing Steering Committee' <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
 
George- 
 
You are right. The business group does not work with only discussing or working on things that get listed as issues in GitHub. We have a repo, but we almost never touch it because the business people we work with don’t work with issues and pull requests. 
 
Thanks for the offer of help and certainly we can establish a workflow for filing an issue for the CG if we want to hand over some development query. 
 
But this TDM thing is a great example of how even though there are only a small number of us who are heavily involved in the work we do at the W3C, we aren’t all on the same page and working together on the same pipeline. 
 
In the end, there isn’t a validation problem with the TDM protocol in its draft form. My team made a mistake that the declaration that needed to be in the header because it isn’t a full part of the standard and was getting pulled out by one of our tools. So our testing for implementation was failing the newest epubcheck. Matt was able to quickly set us straight and we’re fixing the tool that removed it. But that then raises the bigger issue of do we want to fully adopt the protocol into EPUB as a part of the core spec and where does that discussion and planning happen? How do we support the rollout of this interim phase and eventual integration? 
 
Wendy pointed out that she was unaware that the industry was planning to move forward with this. But we’ve been talking about it with publishers for months. We had a guest speaker present it at a PBG meeting earlier this summer. It’s on the list of topics for shared branding sessions with BISG. The publishers association in Europe has been recommending it to all of their members. And yet I can understand where she might not have been aware.  We need to find a better way to ensure that we’re all aware of developments like this and making sure we can support them as best we can. And not just for us, but for all of the publishing industry that depends on us to be there to support their business needs. 
 
I know that business group has not always worked in the way that some folks assume we should. But honestly, Cristina and Daihei and I have a really strong working relationship as co-chairs. We have tried very hard for several years now to bring together the needs of publishers, vendors, retailers, authors and readers for discussions that can be approachable for folks across three timezones and parts of the world to have understandable and easy to access conversations about the business. And to do that in a way that is appropriate for furthering conversations towards standards. We do this work because we’ve all been dedicated to working on building standards for this industry for many, many years and we know that we are not done even if we’ve come to a more stable place. 
 
I look forward to our next SC meeting and working together to figure out the next steps for our Publihshing@W3C efforts. 
 
Best, 
 
 
Liisa McCloy-Kelley
SVP, Director Digital Product Development & Operations
Publishing Operations
Penguin Random House
1745 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
P 212 572 8765
 <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com    
pronouns: she/her
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: kerscher@montana.com <mailto:kerscher@montana.com>  <kerscher@montana.com <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> >
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 at 10:38 AM
To: 'Cristina Mussinelli - Fondazione LIA' <cristina.mussinelli@fondazionelia.org <mailto:cristina.mussinelli@fondazionelia.org> >, 'Reid, Wendy' <wendy.reid@rakuten.com <mailto:wendy.reid@rakuten.com> >, 'Daihei Shiohama' <shiohama@mediado.jp <mailto:shiohama@mediado.jp> >, 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org> >
Cc: 'Ralph Swick' <swick@w3.org <mailto:swick@w3.org> >, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa (she/her) <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> >, 'W3C Publishing Steering Committee' <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Subject: RE: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
Hello,
 
Just one observation about the handoff of the baton from the Business Group and the technical Community Group.
 
The Technical Community Group relies on GitHub and its issue tracking and repository design to get work done; nothing happens unless an issue is created.
 
I don’t think the business group works this way. I was shocked to hear that the business folks were having a problem with EPUBcheck  and we learned that no issue was filed, hence the technical people did not know the problem existed.
 
I think we should establish a process where the Business Group files an issue whenever they want to hand something off to the Community Group. Think of this as a work order. We need to know which repository to file these issues in, which sometimes is not obvious. If this is a problem for the Business group, I would be happy to file such issues on behalf of the Business Group.
 
Best
George
 
 
 
From: Cristina Mussinelli - Fondazione LIA <cristina.mussinelli@fondazionelia.org <mailto:cristina.mussinelli@fondazionelia.org> > 
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 7:58 AM
To: Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com <mailto:wendy.reid@rakuten.com> >; Daihei Shiohama <shiohama@mediado.jp <mailto:shiohama@mediado.jp> >; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org> >
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org <mailto:swick@w3.org> >; McCloy-Kelley, Liisa (she/her) <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> >; W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
 
Dear all,
following what I presented and we discuss in our last meeting, I'd like to offer a different perspective on the relationship between business needs and technical work in our community over the past few years. While I understand Wendy's perception, I actually believe many of our recent developments have been driven by business requirements that had been clearly defined in the IDFP board and then transferred in the W3C charter and  that were then translated into technical work. 
 
I also would remember one very important characteristic of the people participating in the IDPF board and driving the choices and who, after the merger, became the Business Group members: all of them were people chosen by the different member organizations (investing in the IDPF/W3C paying the fee), usually  with quite high seniority and a management role in the company with also technical knowledge in the digital publishing industry. A completely different status of people who may participate in a community group.
I also think we need to consider the fact that we have now opened the Steering Committee to all the ex IDPF Board members, and have brought in 3 new members (Graham, Rick and Leslie) in addition to the 5 board members we had from before (myself, George, Liisa, Tzviya and Bill). This makes us both more representative of that senior level, but does not fully cover the breadth of what we either have or could have with the business group. 
As Daihei also highlights in his previous email I do not think that companies who pay a high fee would agree on leaving strategic decisions on the future development of digital publishing, that in many cases had become a big source of revenues, in the hands of potentially a large group of unknown people.
 
Furthermore, if we look back, we can see several examples of this dynamic at play. The revision of EPUB Accessibility, for instance, was decided and motivated by the need to align with European Accessibility Act requirements - a clear business imperative. Similarly, our work on improving accessibility for Fixed Layout EPUBs stemmed from industry demands. The efforts we've made around anti-counterfeiting measures were also rooted in pressing business concerns. And even our recent discussions about webtoons, if we trace them back, originated from evolving business needs in the publishing landscape. And the TDM work came from myself and Laurent realizing there was a business need to have a technical way to express an AI opt-out that would fulfill the legal requirements of new EU laws, but that forming a community group was the fastest way within the W3C to get to something potentially viable. As we all know, that next step of fully getting things into W3C specs is never fast. 
 
Last but not least the participation in community group seems to me involving more or less the same people so opening a new community group does not have any sense than duplicating activities and efforts.
 
Taking in consideration the above elements in my view, the needs of the publishing business needs have been and continue to be a key driver of our technical work. Perhaps what we're seeing is not a lack of business input, but rather a need for better documentation of how business requirements are influencing our technical directions and better coordination.
 
Moving forward, I think we need to better understand the characteristics, the role and the scope of the existing groups (Business Group, Steering Committee, etc) with the goal of also avoiding duplications of meeting, time allocation and efforts, and at the same time we might want to explore ways to make these connections more explicit and trackable, while still maintaining the flexibility that allows us to respond quickly to industry needs. This could help bridge the perceived gap between business requirements and technical implementations.
 
I hope this clarification may help the discussion i am available to further develop and articulate it in the next Steering meeting.
All my best
Cristina
 
 
 
 
Da: "Reid, Wendy" < <mailto:wendy.reid@rakuten.com> wendy.reid@rakuten.com>
Data: venerdì 13 settembre 2024, 18:10
A: Daihei Shiohama < <mailto:shiohama@mediado.jp> shiohama@mediado.jp>, Ivan Herman < <mailto:ivan@w3.org> ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Ralph Swick < <mailto:swick@w3.org> swick@w3.org>, Liisa McCloy-Kelley < <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, "'PBG Steering Committee (Public)'" < <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Oggetto: Re: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
Rinviato da: "'PBG Steering Committee (Public)'" < <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Data rinvio: venerdì 13 settembre 2024, 18:10
 
Hi all,
 
Thank you for the conversation today, and especially for several people’s candid perspectives on this topic. I think having honest conversations about where we are at is the only way to proceed. 
 
In the interest of being honest, I want to provide my insights as the chair of the “technical” side of the activity and as someone who has attended many BG, CG, and other meetings in our activity. 
 
Cristina is right, we’re spread out, and the differentiation between groups is in name, not participation. For us to succeed, we do need to consider the fact that we are spread too thin across arms of the activity to actually be effective in running any of it. 
 
When Liisa described what happened in IDPF, the presentation of a business problem that is passed to the tech side to solve, I wished that was happening here. From my perspective on the technical side, we have not received anything from the business side in terms of guidance or requests for exploration. All of the developments in EPUB/Audiobooks/Accessibility in the last 5+ years have come from the community and the working group. We have asked many times for business insight, for what to do next, and we have received nothing. 
 
I don’t want this to descend into an argument over who did what and when, I want us to focus on how we resolve this going forwards. I think the best way forward is to integrate the business group with the working group or the community group, and end it as its own separate entity. 
 
Pros: 
* Reduction of number of meetings
* Reduction on demands on our attention, more time for participation
* Brings a diversity of perspectives to the group it folds into: business problems can be addressed directly to technical people, technical people can have business insight into proposed solutions 
* Reduction in fragmentation of communication 
Cons: (derived from what people shared in the meeting)
* Financial challenge for members potentially needing to upgrade to W3C “full” membership if we fold into WG
* Publishing executives that participate want a venue for their concerns separate from the rest of the activity 
* Loss of status separate from CG membership (publishers may still want a “stake” but not in the full technical activity)
 
I think there are ways to handle the cons that would satisfy many, though maybe not everyone. I particularly want to see us improve our communications. 
 
Liisa’s AOB item today illustrated exactly the concern I have with the fragmentation as it currently is. TDM Rep has been in “final note” status since May, if there was a need to change EPUBCheck or any of our tooling, it should have been reported then. There was no communication regarding publisher uptake of TDM Rep, and EPUBCheck is likely only the beginning of issues as it’s implemented since the technical side of the community was never informed about its adoption and use. We’ve had this with other issues in the past as well, but they never get communicated. If you don’t tell us, we don’t know. I can’t communicate effectively with my WG if I don’t have the information, I can’t effectively prioritize or build agendas if I don’t know what the business side wants us to attend to, so we’re left to our own devices. 
 
I apologise if this is too blunt or hard to hear, but for us to succeed as I know we all do, we need to be candid about the challenges and what needs to change. 
 
Thanks,
Wendy 
 
From: Daihei Shiohama < <mailto:shiohama@mediado.jp> shiohama@mediado.jp>
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 at 5:46 PM
To: Ivan Herman < <mailto:ivan@w3.org> ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Ralph Swick < <mailto:swick@w3.org> swick@w3.org>, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa (she/her) < <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, W3C Publishing Steering Committee < <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publishing BG becoming a CG?
[EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization.
Ivan, 
 
I've been talking to several publishers as well as publishing industry related members in Japan who have been actively participating in PBG after your email sent last weekend. In addition to their desire to keep the PBG with the current status, they mention that they are not clear about what caused the idea of changing BG to CG. Though CG could be more open or open to any W3C members, the reason they have been retaining the W3C membership is for privileged discussion and information available to the members.  Some say if only interested in business related discussion, would it mean that keeping the membership may not be necessary?
 
As a W3C Evangelist, I address the importance and value of the W3C membership to all the people I talk to and keep them informed on the value of participating in other W3C groups even outside of publishing. I face a quandary of this BG and CG discussion.
 
Best,
 
Daihei
 
 
 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 9:18 PM Ivan Herman < <mailto:ivan@w3.org> ivan@w3.org> wrote:
Dahei, 
 
thanks. What this means in practice is that, even if the group becomes, officially, a CG, it should be kept separate from the current Publishing CG. Personally, I am perfectly fine with this.
 
Ivan
 
On 10 Sep 2024, at 00:52, Daihei Shiohama < <mailto:shiohama@mediado.jp> shiohama@mediado.jp> wrote:
 
Ralphe, Ivan and SC,
 
In addition to Liisa's comment sent earlier, I would like to point out there shall be a place to give focus to business aspects in the publishing industry and the ecosystem, while tech centric discussion is held at other groups. It is clear that the Japanese major publishers have been participating in the PBG meetings but they may become weary of participating in CG if the technical aspects become stronger. They may even lose justification of their maintaining the W3C membership. As PBG co-chairs, we need to remain responsible for the digital publishing works effectively to each territory and global markets.
 
Best,
 
Daihei
 
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:27 PM Ralph Swick < <mailto:swick@w3.org> swick@w3.org> wrote:
I raised this in the July meeting and solicited feedback: 
 
   <https://www.w3.org/2024/07/12-pbgsc-minutes.html> 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) < <mailto:lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> 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 < <mailto:ivan@w3.org> ivan@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, September 7, 2024 at 5:44 AM
To: W3C Publishing Steering Committee < <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org> 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/> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID:  <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
 
 

----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home:  <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
 
  _____  

Network Confidentiality Notice
Il presente messaggio, e ogni eventuale documento a questo allegato, potrebbe contenere informazioni da considerarsi strettamente riservate ad esclusivo utilizzo del destinatario in indirizzo. Chiunque ricevesse questo messaggio per errore o comunque lo leggesse senza esserne legittimato è avvertito che trattenerlo, copiarlo, divulgarlo, distribuirlo a persone diverse dal destinatario è severamente proibito ed è pregato di darne notizia immediatamente al mittente oltre che cancellare il messaggio e i suoi eventuali allegati dal proprio sistema.
Ai sensi del Regolamento UE 2016/679, il Titolare del trattamento garantisce la massima riservatezza ed il pieno rispetto degli obblighi previsti dalla normativa nazionale e comunitaria in merito alla protezione dei dati personali.

This message, and any attached file transmitted with it, contains information that may be confidential or privileged for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or read it without entitlement be advised that keeping, copying, disseminating or distributing this message to persons other than the intended recipient is strictly forbidden. You are to notify immediately to the sender and to delete this message and any file attached from your system.
In accordance with EU Reg. 2016/679 (GDPR), the Data Controller guarantees the maximum level of confidentiality and full respect of all obligations provided for by the national and the EU legislation currently in force with regard to protection of personal data..