Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

Thanks both.

I await confirmation from Ed that he's happy with this approach.

Jeremy
On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 13:54, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> I was just writing a very similar email, Phil 😉
>
> Provided Ed agrees, as Chair, a resolution passed by the BP subgroup and
> seems good enough. That publication should not come as a surprise to
> anyone. It's been announced for weeks and there's both strong evidence of
> active contributions to the document and a history of previous iterations
> that went just fine.
>
> Francois.
>
>
> > From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:49 PM
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > We need a record of the resolution to publish. To date, this WG has
> > always made such resolutions in plenary calls. However, speaking
> > personally, I'd be happy to argue that a resolution passed by the BP
> > Subgroup that referenced support for the publication in the mail archive
> > would be sufficient.
> >
> > WDYT François?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On 09/05/2017 13:13, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> > > Phil, François
> > >
> > > I may have missed the email, but can you confirm whether the WG vote to
> > > release the BP draft will need to wait until the plenary call next
> week?
> > >
> > > And if so, does this mean that the publication to w3.org will also be
> > > delayed? (I'm assuming so!)
> > >
> > > Thanks, Jeremy
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 00:51 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Possibly only Josh in attendance in St Johns who has much vision of
> these
> > >> activities.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *From:* Scott Simmons [mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org]
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 9 May, 2017 09:00
> > >> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> > >> *Cc:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Ed Parsons <
> > >> eparsons@google.com>; Linda van den Brink
> > <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
> > >> Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>; Chris Little <
> > >> chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Clemens Portele <
> > >> portele@interactive-instruments.de>; Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>;
> Phil
> > >> Archer <phila@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Subject:* Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Simon,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We will, but since they are intended to be standards, we probably
> should
> > >> do both in person in St. John’s or schedule more lead time for a
> webinar.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Scott
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On May 8, 2017, at 4:43 PM, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Do you also need briefings on SSN and OWL-Time?
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> *From:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
> > >> *Sent:* Monday, 8 May 2017 9:37:35 AM
> > >> *To:* Ed Parsons; Linda van den Brink; Scott Simmons; Joshua
> Lieberman;
> > >> Chris Little
> > >> *Cc:* Clemens Portele; Francois Daoust; Phil Archer; SDW WG Public
> List
> > >> *Subject:* Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Phil Archer
> > Data Strategist, W3C
> > http://www.w3.org/
> >
> > http://philarcher.org
> > +44 (0)7887 767755
> > @philarcher1
>
>
>
>