Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0240.html>
>> 
>