Re: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

I found one very minor editorial item – but otherwise I think the changes are excellent and I fully support them.

Thanks Ivan!

Leonard

On 4/21/17, 5:53 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

    Daniel, Florian, everyone
    
    having discussed the issues related to the formal objections on the mailing lists, within the W3C team, etc, I have made a series of proposed editorial changes on the charter to see if these answer the objections. The changes are in a pull request on the github repository:
    
        https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/pull/65

    
    the newly proposed text can be seen directly at:
    
        https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/vivlio-di-objections/index.html

    
    and the diff between this version and the one referred to from the review form can be seen at:
    
        https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/vivlio-di-objections/diff.html

    
    The pull request includes a comment listing the changes that have been made, but I also reproduce them below.
    
    I would hope that these changes form a good basis to resolve the issues around the formal objections, and are acceptable to everyone.
    
    Sincerely
    
    - Ivan
    
    
    
    Here are the changes:
    
    * Simplified many of the bullet items in the "scope" section (relying on the WG to deliberate, based on the UCR document, on many of the details there were listed there)
    
    * In anticipation for the change of the PWP document's title by the DPUB IG, I changed the reference in the charter text. Note, however, the this is more of a placeholder, the new title has not yet been agreed upon by the IG; I used, essentially, Matt's proposal for now. I have also removed the sentence that may be understood as the document being the core of the FPWD ("provides possible technical avenues for the final specifications")
    
    * Changed the text describing the relationships with the BG to make it more mutual and avoid giving the impression that the BG has a veto right (which would be contrary to the W3C process). Similar changes have been made for the relationship with the CG.
    
    * Added an extra note with for the PWP deliverables, whereby that document _may_ become unnecessary if the Web Packaging work fulfills all our needs.
    
    * Extended the WG's life-span to three years. The WP/PWP/EPUB4 Recs have been moved to the end of the three years, and publication of the corresponding CR-s have been relaxed a bit, too. It leaves 18 months for the CR-REC phase. The ARIA CR and REC have also been moved by a quarter, it provides a bit more breathing space.
    
      Note, however, that the schedule changes must be approved by W3M at some point.
    
    
    
    
    ----
    Ivan Herman, W3C
    Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
    Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

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

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 14:41:21 UTC