Re: Preliminary roll call (was RE: Call for F2F agenda items!) - RESPONSE NEEDED!

Vladmir,

For this particular meeting, I think that the "more the merrier" rule applies, especially if the parties in question have a vested interest in webfonts.

Regards...

-- Ken

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <vladimir.levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> I don’t mind, and assuming that other WG members have no objections to having her participate as an observer, she is welcome to attend. The observer status limits her ability to vote on things, but since I do not expect that we will discuss anything that would need to be resolved by a vote - her participation will not be restricted in any way. As a member of Adobe team she will be bound by Adobe's W3C agreement - i.e. any formal proposal or contribution to the WG would be governed by W3C IP policy that implies that if a member company has IP rights associated with the proposed work item or technical contribution that IP will automatically be made available to all on RF terms as defined by the policy.
> 
> And, while we are on the subject, I will have a colleague of mine Mike Matteo attending the W3C meetings, he is a relative newcomer to Monotype and in his role of VP of partnerships and Strategic Alliances he also expressed the desire to participate in our meeting as an observer. I hope the WG wouldn’t mind, but if you do - please speak up!
> 
> Cheers,
> Vlad
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Lunde [mailto:lunde@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:27 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: Roderick Sheeter; w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Preliminary roll call (was RE: Call for F2F agenda items!) - RESPONSE NEEDED!
> 
> Vladimir,
> 
> Persa Zula, who is a member of our Typekit team, is interested in joining in person. She would simply accompany me. Is that okay, or does something formal need to be done?
> 
> Regards...
> 
> -- Ken
> 
> > On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Ken,
> > 
> > Google has offered to host the meeting at their MTV location on November 9, the exact time isn’t set yet but considering the light agenda we can start at about lunch time and be done by late afternoon / early evening. If we get more responses and agenda+ topics to consider we can revise the time later this week.
> > 
> > On my end - the two agenda items would be
> > 1) the current status of WOFF2 implementations / CTS, and
> > 2) the review of the new work items proposed at the last F2F meeting.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Vlad
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Lunde [mailto:lunde@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:49 AM
> > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > Cc: Roderick Sheeter; w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
> > Subject: Re: Preliminary roll call (was RE: Call for F2F agenda items!) - RESPONSE NEEDED!
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > Vladimir,
> > 
> > Are there more details about the actual venue and a starting/ending time? I was in back-to-back one-week working meetings, so this slipped past my proverbial radar. If you need a place for the meeting, I could potentially book at room at Adobe's HQ in downtown San Jose.
> > 
> > Regards...
> > 
> > -- Ken
> > 
> > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hello WG,
> > > 
> > > I would like to express my gratitude to Rod for hosting the meeting and proposing agenda topics, but I must admit I am a bit puzzled and concerned by the lack of responses. Only two of the WG members (Rod and Ned) have replied to my emails, and at this time I am not even sure if (or how many of) you plan to attend the WG meeting.
> > > 
> > > I expected that having it in the Bay Area during the week of W3C TPAC meetings would be an easy choice for many of you to attend, but if this is not the case, then we need to make a final decision – having F2F with only two member companies represented at the meeting can’t really be considered a WG meeting. So, with this in mind – please reply to this email indicating whether you plan to attend the WG meeting and be there in person, or if you plan to attend the meeting remotely, or if you won’t be able to make it on Nov. 9.
> > > 
> > > Whatever your status may be – communicating it to the group is really important!
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > Vlad
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Roderick Sheeter [mailto:rsheeter@google.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:16 PM
> > > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > > Cc: w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
> > > Subject: Re: Call for F2F agenda items!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Will be there.
> > > 
> > > Topic barnstorming:
> > > > A way to not break opentype features when they span files (e.g. 
> > > > unicode-range shouldn't break things) An effort specifically aimed at CJK compression.
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:23 AM Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > > 
> > > The F2F (scheduled on Nov. 9) is rapidly approaching, and with the WOFF2 being on its way to PR we have only few things left to do before the current group charter runs its course.
> > > 
> > > Last year, during our F2F @ ATypI we identified a number of things (see “Big discussion on new work items” in [1]) that would be of value for this WG to consider, but not much has happened since. I think it would be useful for us as a group to revisit those items to see if they are still deemed relevant and useful, and discuss other things that you might wish to bring up – don’t be bashful!
> > > 
> > > Also, in my first item to solicit for agenda+ items for the F2F [2] I proposed a topic format that I think will be very helpful to get us all up to speed and make the F2F productive – if you could please submit your proposed items in that format it would be great, but the most important part is to SUBMIT – formatting is of no concern if we have nothing to discuss.
> > > 
> > > I do realize that some/many of the issues that were brought up may not be seen as “in scope” of traditional W3C WG work, and that not every problem we identified can be fixed in this forum – we might want to dedicate some time and discuss if certain problems we see might actually be suitable to be addressed by other forums. E.g., looking at the last year CJK related discussion I wonder if making a submission that would fix ISO/IEC 14496-28 CFR standard might be a helpful endeavor – we can do it via an established liaison relationship between W3C and MPEG.
> > > 
> > > Again, we have only a couple of weeks left before the big TPAC week, and I am looking forward to seeing many of you there and at the F2F.
> > > If you could please reply to this email with:
> > > - Your proposed agenda topic, and/or
> > > 
> > > - Whether you plan to be there in person for the F2F on November 9
> > > 
> > > I’d very much appreciate it!
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > Vlad
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.w3.org_2016_

> > > 09 
> > > _12-2Dwebfonts-2Dminutes.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf
> > > -v 
> > > 5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jb2T9D8Np5j0t1X2JtGDVMxJyD5fvLoEPxzRs46vOK4UfGfOrlV
> > > sy 
> > > uleed6YRZk5&m=gLzyxvLWR6UjU7ULgDL2p-m6qKkm133B5VByML0qkIc&s=poPbzuT9
> > > Sh DRiddYnS5FMoxey6uTFi9LGJ2jiiEImt8&e=
> > > [2]
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Ar

> > > ch 
> > > ives_Public_public-2Dwebfonts-2Dwg_2017Sep_0011.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZ
> > > st 
> > > caTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jb2T9D8Np5j0t1X2JtGDVMxJyD5f
> > > vL
> > > oEPxzRs46vOK4UfGfOrlVsyuleed6YRZk5&m=gLzyxvLWR6UjU7ULgDL2p-m6qKkm133
> > > B5 VByML0qkIc&s=g02IjCx8uNboOkzZo56-p-oaq54VwiGVBxoNXdOqOjI&e=
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2017 02:20:48 UTC