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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>