Re: Thoughts on rechartering and the future of publications on the web

On 11/21/2018 7:46 AM, Avneesh Singh wrote:
> “But of the 300 or so IDPF members, probably no more than 10% were 
> ever active in the development of EPUB at any given time”
> My statement was about 300 members participating or following EPUB 
> standards development.
> It is not just about development. Only a limited number of people are 
> engaged in actual development of standards, it is also true for other 
> standards bodies.
> The CG gives a better environment to follow standards even if people 
> are not participating in it.
> We should look the issue from two perspectives.
> 1. Is rec track label helpful, does it justify the efforts. The work 
> is in progress for that.
> 2. How to engage more publishing community. Obviously working group 
> limits participation.

While WGs limit formal participation, almost all of the work is done in 
public GH repositories and can be followed and commented on by the 
broader community.


> How can we make sure that publishing industry as a whole is better 
> involved.
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Matt Garrish
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2018 18:00
> *To:* 'Avneesh Singh' ; 'AUDRAIN LUC' ; 'W3C Publishing Business 
> Group' ; 'Jeff Jaffe'
> *Subject:* RE: Thoughts on rechartering and the future of publications 
> on the web
>
> > W3C may have achieved number of 50 or little more, but it is still 15% to 20%. And with transitional 
> membership program coming to close, it may drop to some extent.
>
> But of the 300 or so IDPF members, probably no more than 10% were ever 
> active in the development of EPUB at any given time, and I’m not sure 
> moving to W3C has changed the composition of that group greatly (plus 
> the CG and BG can still be forums for discussion). What might be more 
> helpful than looking at raw numbers would be to query those parties 
> and find out who has the interest and time to dedicate to the tasks 
> that are going to be necessary to get 3.2 to REC.
>
> By way of example, the EPUB test suite was just a basic way of showing 
> compatibility with EPUB 2, plus highlight some new features, and that 
> took a lot of time to put together by a lot of people (we had a 
> dedicated subgroup in IDPF working on it at one point, consisting of a 
> good dozen or so individuals). If we can’t get at least a similar 
> commitment of people and time, it would shed some doubt on the 
> potential success of moving EPUB 3 into the REC track.
>
> Matt
>
> *From:*Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* November 21, 2018 07:00
> *To:* AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>; W3C Publishing 
> Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>; Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on rechartering and the future of publications 
> on the web
>
> On 11/19/2018 5:25 AM, AUDRAIN LUC wrote:
>
>     In this global view, you will not be surprised that I believe
>     making EPUB3.2 a REC is not a good idea. It will not only take
>     energy and time from the WG, it will also put EPUB3 out of reach
>     of the pub industry!
>
>     We all know that W3C full members fees are unaffordable for almost
>     all publishing houses around the world, and not only the fees, but
>     also the time consuming, expertise, and travel expenses.
>
> There are many Pro's and Con's about putting EPUB 3.2 on the REC 
> track, and I don't want to take a position on this general issue.
>
> But I want to push back on the notion that we don't have a critical 
> mass of publishers who are members of W3C. Quite the contrary, in a 
> very short amount of time, I believe we have built a strong 
> foundation.  This includes:
>
>   * Classical organizations in the IDPF ecosystem who joined W3C -
>     either before the merger or after.  Some of the larger ones
>     include: Hachette, Pearson, Wiley, VitalSource, Kodansha,
>     Shueisha, and MacMillan.  I expect that a few more might join as
>     we get to the TPI expiration date. And we have some smaller
>     members as well.
>   * Classical W3C companies who participate (or should participate) in
>     EPUB: Adobe, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Rakuten (including Kobo and
>     Overdrive)
>   * New W3C members who we want to get involved in EPUB: Amazon
>   * We still have over two months remaining to get more TPIs to sign
>     up to regular membership. Thanks to various folks in the BG who
>     have been helping Karen and Alan with making contacts.
>
> To be sure, we are not where we need to be, and we have a lot of work 
> in front of ourselves to further strengthen this community. But we 
> have a very strong nucleus.
>
>     Then as a REC, EPUB will not be maintained any more by publishers !
>
> Avneesh: In IDPF more 300 publishers and vendors use to participate or 
> follow the EPUB developments. W3C may have achieved number of 50 or 
> little more, but it is still 15% to 20%. And with transitional 
> membership program coming to close, it may drop to some extent.
>
> W3C has made good efforts to involve publishing community, but we are 
> still not at the level of satisfaction.
>
> I believe we need to encourage participation in EPUB 3 developments, 
> it may be through free of cost in community group or may be at 
> discounted price. And leverage it for encouraging the participating 
> organizations to up grade to official W3C membership in due course.
>
> With regards
>
> Avneesh
>
> membership coming to end
>