Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

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
>
>
>