See also: IRC log
Thank you to Hachette to step in
Charter was done last evening !
sent to the AC on Friday
Today 2 new comments « formal objections »
Remenber that if you are already members, please vote
If the Formal Objection is maintaned, it escalates to the directors
And the director are extremely reluctant to overrule the FO
Consensus is the rule, we should take care asap
Until the commenters are fine and agree
Paul: 4 options : Approve / Approve with samll objections, / Not approves with FO / Don’t want this WG
Ivan: we have comments from VivlioStyle
Rick: this is job number one to go in the details
Ivan; if we cannot settled, it may delay
Garth: do we have to restart the vote?
Ivan: if there is no radical change in the charter, we are fine
If radical changes, we have to ask for a new vote
BillM: until May 14 , so make these guy happy is our task
the more people voting yes, will put pressure on the objectors
<ivan> Vivliostyle's comments: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Apr/0007.html
Ivan: Summary : the current draft for WP/PWP not mature enough for the REC track
Their proposal : modify the scheduled of the WG to produce first notes to put in the charter
IPR protection in the WG is taken very seriously
So this proposal is a bit shaky
It would not really change our work
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
The charter is a claim of what we would try to produce
In this case, their is hope to find in Beijing a modus vivendi
BillM: the critic is that if we want the fast track, the charter is not mature enough
An answer could be that IDPF merge
would be the reason
Ivan: no raise the argument that we should do it because it was said to IDPF
It helps a lot if members who have already voted give their opinion on the public mailing
Replying to the mailing list in an appropriate response
Rick: is it a true statement that the maturing process should be moved in the WG?
Thare are several schools: the 2 cases were found. Here we could let things mature in the WG
Rick: Florian propose to synchronize a presentation on CSS, Rick propose to call him and discuss personally
Garth: Is there any opportunity to give a response with a note first?
<BillMcCoy> will anyone else besides Rick, BillM be in Beijing??
Ivan: don’t see any reason to publish a note
We have to make clear that the current PWP document isn’t the one to become the first public draft
Ivan will put a statement for clarification
Garth: clarification wouldn’t do harm
Ivan: i don’t want to be the only person to do this, Garth?
<liisamk> +1 to Garth responding to clarify
Gart: I’ll do that on the emailing list
Paul: distinction between different processes in WG, but the approval has to come from the WG
Ivan: IG would have a much specification work before starting the WG
Paul: it may be only semantic clarification what they ask
<graham_> Apologies to the group – as noted to Rick earlier, I am going to have to leave the second half of the meeting
Ivan: it may be the understanding of the role of the PWP doc
More than semantic
Paul: general lines are « keep options open »
Surmountable
In the maturity aspect, is the there a thought about the time frame being to short?
<ivan> Daniel Glazman's comments: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Apr/0008.html
Ivan: it is not in Florian comment
... Daniel’s comment much harder
He make points for a large revamp of the charter. Should be only for EPUB4. WP/PWP should not be made REC track
Garth: the thing to do is to get on the phone on Daniel
EPUB4 being an instance of th WP/PWP, how can we do it without WP
Subset of that group with good relation to schedule a call with Daniel
Ivan: I agree, because it could be a long discussion in email
BillM: Good relations with Daniel, i agree to participate
<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?
Useful to know who is coming in Beijing
Garth: perhaps not too many people
to have a call with Daniel
Iavn: 2 possibilities : 1) BillM try to talk to him separately, 2) Then we schedule a cal with Rick and myself
Where does he want to go? Are the objection so deep?
Garth: Bill and Ivan first?
BillK: you are 2 W3C staff
Ivan: we are stick to a neutral position
BillM: try to be neutral
Daniel advocate very strongly to push the merger
So try to understand what is the problem with the WG, it would be the angle
Ivan: BillM tomorrow morning i will give you my comments on the 9 points
Perhaps you could contact Daniel now to find the proper time
Rick: logistic problem for next week
... what is the agenda
... dealing with the issues, what are the actions items?
George: the Community group could encourage that activity
Rick: liaison between the to groups
Liisa: the liaison has been setup between the 2 groups
Is it something to be raised at the F2F?
George: Remote participation will be very important, and DAISY will bring help
<garth> [I’m gonna need to bolt; will get PWP input document clarification to mailing list later today]
Liisa: Dave and Richard will talk about a planning about how to push things
It will be put on the agenda next week
Get the BG talking about this
Ivan: happy to chair
Rick: EDUPUB will not be ready for next week
BillK: a docuement about epubcheck, not ready
George: reinforce the need about epubtest.org
Community group and epubtest on the agenda
<scribe> ACTION: items to proposal from Liisa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/04/18-pbgsc-minutes.html#action01]
Form for the election (?)
AOB?
Paul: Remind BillK form membership
Needed to vote for the charter
<Bill_Kasdorf> what is the remind BillK? I missed that