Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

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
>>
>>
>>
>