15:56:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pbgsc
15:56:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/18-pbgsc-irc
15:56:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pbgsc
15:56:58 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:57:11 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Steering Committee Call
15:57:25 <BillMcCoy> BillMcCoy has joined #pbgsc
15:58:31 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publishing-sc/2017Apr/0066.html
15:58:37 <ivan> Chair: Rick
15:59:13 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pbgsc
15:59:35 <Rick_Johnson_> Rick_Johnson_ has joined #pbgsc
15:59:46 <Rick_Johnson> Rick_Johnson has joined #pbgsc
15:59:58 <pbelfanti> pbelfanti has joined #pbgsc
16:00:10 <pbelfanti> present+ Paul Belfanti
16:00:37 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pbgsc
16:00:48 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+ Bill_Kasdorf
16:00:57 <ivan> present+
16:01:50 <laudrain> present+
16:02:30 <liisamk> liisamk has joined #pbgsc
16:03:36 <Rick_Johnson> present+ Rick_Johnson
16:05:32 <BillMcCoy> present+ Bill McCoy
16:07:21 <ivan> scribenick: laudrain
16:07:45 <garth> garth has joined #pbgsc
16:07:48 <liisamk> present+ Liisa McCloy-Kelley
16:07:51 <garth> present+ garth
16:07:58 <laudrain> Thank you to Hachette to step in
16:07:58 <graham_> graham_ has joined #pbgsc
16:08:15 <laudrain> Charter was done last evening !
16:08:30 <laudrain> sent to the AC on Friday
16:08:51 <laudrain> Today 2 new comments « formal objections »
16:09:23 <laudrain> Remeber that if you are already members, please vote
16:09:46 <laudrain> s/Remeber/Remenber/
16:10:13 <laudrain> If the Formal Objection is maintaned, it escalates to the directors
16:10:31 <pbelfanti> q+
16:10:41 <laudrain> And the director are extremely reluctant to overrule the FO
16:11:06 <laudrain> Consensus is the rule, we should take care asap
16:11:21 <laudrain> Until the commentors are find and agree
16:11:28 <ivan> ack pbelfanti
16:11:29 <laudrain> s/find/fine/
16:11:57 <garth> q?
16:12:34 <laudrain> Paul : 4 options : Approve / Approve with samll objectios, / Not approves with FO / Don’t want this WG
16:13:24 <laudrain> Ivan : we have comments from VivlioStyle
16:13:43 <laudrain> Rick : this is job number one to go in the details
16:13:59 <laudrain> Ivan; if we cannot settled, it may delay
16:14:06 <BillMcCoy> q+
16:14:23 <laudrain> Garth :  do we have to restart the vote?
16:14:48 <laudrain> Ivan : if there is no radical change in the charter, we are fine
16:15:07 <laudrain> If radical changes, we have to ask for a new vote
16:15:15 <garth> ack Bill
16:15:51 <laudrain> BillM : until May 14 , so make these guy happy is our task
16:16:25 <laudrain> the more people voting yes, will put pressure on the objectors
16:16:57 <ivan> Vivliostyle's comments: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Apr/0007.html
16:17:56 <Leslie> Leslie has joined #pbgsc
16:18:02 <laudrain> Ivan : Summary : the current draft for WP/PWP not mature enough for the REC track
16:18:51 <laudrain> Proposal : modify the scheduled of the WG to produce first notes to put in the charter
16:19:18 <laudrain> s/Proposal/Their proposal/
16:19:31 <cristina> cristina has joined #pbgsc
16:19:54 <laudrain> IPR protection in the WG is taken very seriously
16:20:18 <laudrain> So this proposal is a bit shaky
16:20:50 <garth> q?
16:20:50 <laudrain> It would not really change our work
16:21:29 <BillMcCoy> q+
16:21:41 <laudrain> For every WG at W3C, it is possible to say that they was non consensus, and it would not be a REC, but we could live with it
16:22:00 <laudrain> The charter is a claim of what we would try to produce
16:22:39 <laudrain> In this case, their is hope to find in Beijing a modus vivendi
16:22:45 <Rick_Johnson> q+
16:22:57 <ivan> ack BillMcCoy
16:23:14 <laudrain> BillM: the critic is that if we want the fast track, the charter is not mature enough
16:23:42 <garth> q?
16:23:47 <garth> q+
16:24:08 <laudrain> An answer could be that IDPF merge
16:24:23 <laudrain> would be the reason
16:25:06 <laudrain> Ivan: no raise the argument that we should do it because it was said to IDPF
16:25:27 <George> George has joined #pbgsc
16:25:38 <laudrain> It hels a lot if members who have already voted gice their opinion on the public mailing
16:25:47 <George> present+ George
16:25:59 <laudrain> Replying to the mailing list in an appropriate response
16:26:12 <garth> ack Rick
16:26:58 <laudrain> Rick: is it a true statement that the maturing procces should be moved in the WG?
16:27:20 <pbelfanti> q+
16:28:07 <laudrain> Thare are several schools: the 2 cases were found. Here we could let things mature in the WG
16:29:05 <laudrain> Rick: Florian propose to synchronize a presentaion on CSS, Rick propose to call him and discuss personnally
16:29:49 <laudrain> Garth: Is there any opportunity to give a response with a note first?
16:29:52 <BillMcCoy> will anyone else besides Rick, BillM be in Beijing??
16:29:55 <George> q+
16:30:04 <garth> ack garth
16:30:07 <laudrain> Ivan: don’t see any reason to publish a note
16:30:50 <laudrain> We have to make clear that the current PWP docuement isn’t the one to become the first public draft
16:32:04 <laudrain> Ivan will put a statement for clarification
16:32:56 <laudrain> Garth: clarifiation wouldn’t do harm
16:33:17 <laudrain> Ivan: i don’t want to be the only person to do this, Garth?
16:33:26 <liisamk> +1 to Garth responding to clarify
16:33:27 <laudrain> Gart: I’ll do that on th emailing list
16:33:29 <ivan> ack garth
16:33:33 <ivan> ack pbelfanti
16:34:14 <laudrain> Paul: distinction between different processes in WG, but the approval has to come from the WG
16:34:45 <laudrain> Ivan: IG would have a much specification work befiore starting the WG
16:35:11 <laudrain> Paul: it may be only semantic clarification what they ask
16:35:23 <graham_> Apologies to the group – as noted to Rick earlier, I am going to have to leave the second half of the meeting
16:35:38 <laudrain> Ivan: it may be the understanding of the role of the PWP doc
16:35:49 <laudrain> More than semantic
16:35:54 <garth> q?
16:36:16 <laudrain> Paul: general lines are « keep options open »
16:36:30 <ivan> ack George
16:36:31 <laudrain> Surmountable
16:36:36 <graham_> graham_ has left #pbgsc
16:37:11 <laudrain> In the maturity aspect, is the there a thought about the time frame being to short?
16:37:41 <ivan> Daniel Glazman's comments: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Apr/0008.html
16:37:46 <laudrain> Ivan: it is not in Florian comment
16:38:02 <laudrain> Ivan: Daniel’s comment much harder
16:39:25 <garth> q+
16:39:29 <laudrain> He make points for a large revamp of the charter. Should be only for EPUB4. WP/PWP should not be made REC track
16:39:39 <ivan> ack garth
16:40:17 <laudrain> Garth: the thing to do is to get on the phone on Daniel
16:40:51 <laudrain> EPUB4 being an instance of th WP/PWP, how can we do it without WP
16:41:27 <BillMcCoy> q+
16:41:31 <laudrain> Subset of that group with good relation to schedule a call with Daniel
16:41:49 <garth> q?
16:41:53 <laudrain> Ivan: I agreee, because it could be a long discussion in email
16:42:02 <garth> ack Bill
16:42:03 <ivan> ack BillMcCoy
16:42:25 <laudrain> BillM: Good relations with Daniel, i agree to participate
16:42:51 <George> When Daniel says these should be W3C notes, is he simply saying that the DPUB documents should be notes as input to the WG?
16:43:01 <laudrain> Useful to know who is coming in Beijing
16:43:18 <laudrain> Garth: perhaps not too many people
16:43:28 <laudrain> to have a call with Daniel
16:43:37 <garth> q?
16:44:20 <laudrain> Iavn: 2 possibilities : 1) BillM try to talk to him separateley, 2) Then we schedule a cal with Rick and myself
16:44:44 <laudrain> Where does he want to go? Are the objection so deep?
16:44:59 <laudrain> Garth: Bill and Ivan first?
16:45:37 <laudrain> BillK: you are 2 W3C staff
16:45:56 <BillMcCoy> q+
16:46:16 <laudrain> Ivan: we are stick to a neutral position
16:46:26 <ivan> ack BillMcCoy
16:46:42 <laudrain> BillM: try to be neutral
16:46:55 <laudrain> Daniel advote very strongly to pucsh the merger
16:47:41 <laudrain> So try to untersatnd what is the problem with the WG, it would be the angle
16:48:21 <laudrain> Ivan: BillM tomorrow morning i will give you my comments on the 9 points
16:48:55 <laudrain> Perhaps you could contact Daiel now to find the propoer time
16:49:16 <laudrain> s/propoer/proper/
16:49:38 <laudrain> Rick: logistic problem for next week
16:49:58 <laudrain> Rick: what is the agenda
16:50:50 <laudrain> Rick: dealing with the issues, what are the actions items?
16:51:03 <liisamk> q+
16:51:16 <laudrain> George: the Community group could encourage that activity
16:51:33 <laudrain> Rick: liason between the to groups
16:51:56 <laudrain> Liisa: the liason has been setup between the 2 groups
16:52:16 <Rick_Johnson> ack lii
16:52:31 <laudrain> Is it something to be reaised at the F2F?
16:52:49 <laudrain> s/reaised+
16:53:26 <laudrain> George: Remote participation will be very important, and DAISY will bring help
16:54:15 <garth> [I’m gonna need to bolt; will get PWP input document clairification to mailing list later today]
16:54:25 <laudrain> Liisa: Dave and Richard will talk about a planning about how to push things
16:54:39 <laudrain> It will be put on the agenda next week
16:55:03 <laudrain> Get the BG talking about this
16:55:17 <laudrain> Ivan: happy to chair
16:55:40 <laudrain> Rick: EDUPUB will not be ready for next week
16:56:03 <laudrain> BillK: a docuement about epubcheck, not ready
16:56:31 <laudrain> George: reinforce the need about epubtest.org
16:57:12 <laudrain> Community group and epubtest on the agenda
16:57:48 <laudrain> Action items: proposal from Liisa
16:58:21 <laudrain> Form for the election (?)
16:58:29 <laudrain> AOB?
16:58:48 <laudrain> Paul: Remind BillK form membership
16:59:21 <laudrain> Needed to vote for the charter
17:00:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> what is the remind BillK? I missed that
17:01:55 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/18-pbgsc-minutes.html ivan
17:03:01 <garth> garth has joined #pbgsc
17:05:15 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=96687