Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

Scott -

I'm on CEST that week at external meetings. So 16:00UTC won't work for me.
Please could we go for 14:00UTC?

Josh -

Thanks for promising to attend!

Jeremy
On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 13:49, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> It looks as if the GeoRSS session is scheduled in the portal for 11am EDT.
> I’ll ping Raj to merge my changes to the namespace references in advance.
>
> Jeremy, I’ll be on the road most of that day, but it shouldn’t be a
> problem to join in both the GeoRSS and SDW BP webinars along the way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Josh
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was waiting on conformation that it could be either an hour
> before or an hour after 1500 on Monday (there is already a GeoRSS session
> at 1500). Could you support either of those times? If so, I will schedule
> and announce today.
>
> Scott
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi-
>
> Scott: I've not yet seen confirmation of the TC webinar to introduce the
> SDW BP - scheduled for Mon 15-May-2017. Did I miss something?
>
> Josh & Chris: it looks like it will be just me presenting the BP doc as
> Linda and (probably) Ed will not be able to make it. Can I count on your
> attendance as OAB folk to provide necessary support? Thanks.
>
> Everyone else is welcome too!
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 09:27 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the schedule for my meeting in Geneva, I'm almost certain that
>> I will be able to present SDW BP to the TC at 15:00UTC. So let's go for
>> that day & time. Please will you (Scott) send my details of the videoconf?
>> On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 08:49, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm afraid I have an all day meeting, on that day I may be able to step
>>> out also and if so hold Jeremy's coat..
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Fri, 5 May 2017, 09:31 Linda van den Brink, <
>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am on holiday then – but feel free to go ahead without me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Van:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
>>>> *Verzonden:* donderdag 4 mei 2017 22:21
>>>> *Aan:* Scott Simmons
>>>> *CC:* Clemens Portele; Ed Parsons; Francois Daoust; Linda van den
>>>> Brink; Phil Archer; SDW WG Public List
>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll be in Geneva from Wed 10th May for a week ... but should be able
>>>> to duck out of my other meetings for the webinar. Monday 15-May is probably
>>>> best for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed, Linda - what do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 May 2017 at 21:17 Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In follow-up, let’s also pick a date for a TC-wide webinar to present
>>>> the BP. These are scheduled for one hour and involve a presentation of the
>>>> document contents ranging in length from 10 - 30 minutes followed by Q&A. I
>>>> like to give members about 2 weeks notice, so would some time the week of
>>>> the 15th work? We have such webinars scheduled that week for Monday (15
>>>> May) and Wednesday at 1500 UTC. Also note that there is an upcoming TC
>>>> Meeting preview webinar on Wednesday, so that may be a bd day to add yet
>>>> another OGC duty to peoples’ calendars!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's good to know. Many thanks
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 16:43, Scott Simmons <
>>>> ssimmons@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We would be well underway on the vote by the June TC meeting and can
>>>> use that week to lobby for votes - actually it is a good thing as we tend
>>>> to get the best voting on ballots that run through TC weeks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's more than reordering. There's still some pretty substantial work
>>>> going in around BPs 8 and 10 (old numbers) being lead by Andrea and Bill
>>>> respectively. Plus the addition of a new conclusions section.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apologies that this means we then fail to hit the physical TC / PC in
>>>> June; but i need that extra time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 16:35, Scott Simmons <
>>>> ssimmons@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The schedule mostly works and yes, I did note that this document has
>>>> certainly abided by the 3-week rule in comparison to other documents that
>>>> get posted in a very incomplete state just to make a deadline! The crux is
>>>> how major are the changes to this last revision: if mostly reordering, we
>>>> can work against your proposed schedule. If there were really major changes
>>>> to content, we should give the TC 3 weeks to review because this is a Best
>>>> Practice and not an Engineering Report or Discussion Paper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So let’s say we are going with a 3-week Pending timeline. Because the
>>>> document has been on Pending for multiple drafts for quite some time, I
>>>> have no issue letting the presentation occur during the 3-week review
>>>> period. So if the final to-be-voted version is posted on 8 May, we would
>>>> start the vote on 29 May, which ends the vote in mid-July. After the vote,
>>>> there would be a 2-week electronic (email) vote by the PC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is your honest appraisal of this revision: reordering and
>>>> refinement or major changes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Clemens - I remember Scott saying that we've "already passed the
>>>> 3-week rule" because we've been making drafts available for previous
>>>> months! It was probably a little tongue-in-cheek, but Scott didn't seem to
>>>> be too concerned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott: what do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > would it be really a problem, if the TC vote would finish after June
>>>> 30, ie after the end of the SDW WG? If there are any comments associated
>>>> with the vote that need to be addressed, maybe the Geosemantics DWG could
>>>> be responsible?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this would be fine. Also, I think that there is (a little)
>>>> flexibility from the W3C perspective on the final closure date of the WG if
>>>> we're able to demonstrate that there is a completion plan in place. Or at
>>>> least that's my understanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 16:16 Clemens Portele <
>>>> portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> one comment:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly our revised timetable squeezes the time between vote to release
>>>> and the TC webinar - but I don't see an issue with that. Please advise if
>>>> you feel otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there were three weeks (based on the 3-week-rule in the OGC
>>>> policies & procedures) between the release of the document (i.e. the
>>>> publication to pending documents in the OGC portal) and the webinar. We
>>>> probably cannot shorten this period unless all members agree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, would it be really a problem, if the TC vote would finish
>>>> after June 30, ie after the end of the SDW WG? If there are any comments
>>>> associated with the vote that need to be addressed, maybe the Geosemantics
>>>> DWG could be responsible?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Clemens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25. Apr 2017, at 16:43, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Scott, François / Phil - I'm looking to you to 'approve' the new
>>>> schedule, in that it meets with the milestones needed for OGC and W3C]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As happens from time to time, timescales for deliverables sometimes get
>>>> delayed. Unfortunately, this was the case for the anticipated BP WD release
>>>> (scheduled for a vote tomorrow; 26-April). Apologies, my fault.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's still quite a lot to do this sprint!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linda and I have come up with a new timeline for BP release:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Monday 8-May: freeze document (work finished on this sprint)
>>>>
>>>> - Wednesday 10-May: WG vote to release*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then from Scott's email [1] the following dates are taken:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Friday 12-May: webinar** to present Best Practices to Technical
>>>> Committee (TC)
>>>>
>>>> - Sunday 14-May: start TC recommendation vote (45 days)
>>>>
>>>> - Friday 30-Jun: Planning Committee (PC) approval at face-to-face
>>>> meeting in St. John’s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly our revised timetable squeezes the time between vote to release
>>>> and the TC webinar - but I don't see an issue with that. Please advise if
>>>> you feel otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the TC webinar - I ask for support from OAB members who have
>>>> been involved in the BP work (Josh- I'm thinking that you have been more
>>>> involved with the BP stuff than Chris?) to ensure that we're delivering the
>>>> right message to the TC. Please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We editors anticipate a further set of purely editorial changes, fixing
>>>> typos, getting consistent style etc. following this vote to release. I am
>>>> assuming we can make these changes while the TC recommendation vote is
>>>> on-going and release a revised version at the end?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * the call on 10-May is scheduled as a BP sub-group call, which would
>>>> nominally occur at 15:00UTC. So- we can either vote by correspondence, -OR-
>>>> we could reschedule the call to 20:00UTC to make participation/voting
>>>> easier for our Australian colleagues (albeit an early start). PLEASE ADVISE
>>>> ON YOUR PREFERENCE: vote by correspondence or change the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Scott: what do you envisage for this webinar? Just an overview of
>>>> the key points; aims and structure of the doc? I guess that the TC have 45
>>>> days before the vote closes, so there's plenty of time to read after the WG
>>>> vote to release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Jeremy & Linda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0240.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>>
>>> +44 7825 382263 <+44%207825%20382263> @edparsons
>>> www.edparsons.com
>>>
>>
>
>