Re: [sdw] ssn meeting this week + process of changes to WD until then

I am traveling and cannot join the meeting. I would vote that all editors
can edit the document. After all this is what editors do :-). I would
suggest the same for the ontology code as such, e.g. SOSA.

All the best,
Krzysztof

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> As agreed in the F2F on Friday, we will have *one more meeting before
> Christmas on the 20th of December* at our usual time (see below) to agree
> on outstanding pull request to the document at
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ + all four ontology files that are linked
> from the WD or should be linked, i.e.: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/
> blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn.owl
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_
> separated/ssn_equivalences.owl
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_
> separated/dul-alignment.owl *Until the meeting changes can be made to the
> document and the ontologies*, but only via commits to your own branch and
> by issuing a PULL request. *No one, BUT Danh should commit anything to
> the main branch* of any of these four files. This was agreed upon in the
> meeting. This is not the process we will go forward from Tuesday onwards
> and in the meeting, we will need to agree on a way forward that is ok for
> all four editors. If you cannot attend the meeting, please do propose the
> best way forward, keeping in mind that we have separate requirements to the
> BP editors, as we have several ontology files that also need to be in sync
> with the document. Agenda for SSN-focused meeting 20 December 2016 21:00
> UTC
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20161206T21&ah=1&msg=SSN%20Call>
>
>    1. Approving pending change requests on WD document and agree on
>    frozen state for vote on 4th of January
>    2. Commit Workflow going forward
>
>
>
> Further details and dial in instructions: https://www.w3.org/2015/
> spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161220
>
>
>
> *Re 2: There are three distinct workflows that I can think of we can
> proceed with after our meeting. Please propose other solutions if you can
> think of a better way of doing it:*
>
>
>
> 1.       All commits to the WD + the ontologies the WD depends upon *regardless
> if you are an editor or not* need to be committed to your own branch and *pull
> requests need to be issued for EACH commit*. The Pull request needs to be
> approved by an editor other than the one who made the change. This also
> means that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until
> your PULL request is accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in
> your repository.
>
> 2.       All commits to the WD + the ontologies the WD depends upon *regardless
> if you are editor or not *need to be committed to your own branch and *pull
> requests need to be issued*, but *multiple commits can be made in each
> PULL request*. The Pull request needs to be approved by an editor other
> than the one who made the change. This also means that once you have
> committed your changes and a PULL request, until your PULL request is
> accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in your repository.
>
> 3.       *Editors commit all changes to WD + the ontologies directly to
> the gh-branch*, whereas *all other working group members commits to their
> own branch and pull requests need to be issued for EACH commit*. The Pull
> request needs to be approved by an editor. This still means for non-editors
> that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until your
> PULL request is accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in your
> repository.
>
>
>
> Please do think of your preferred way going forward. I am personally in
> favour of (3) for speed and ease of use.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Armin
>