Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

I'm afraid I have an all day meeting, on that day I may be able to step out
also and if so hold Jeremy's coat..

Ed

On Fri, 5 May 2017, 09:31 Linda van den Brink, <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> I am on holiday then – but feel free to go ahead without me.
>
>
>
> *Van:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 4 mei 2017 22:21
> *Aan:* Scott Simmons
> *CC:* Clemens Portele; Ed Parsons; Francois Daoust; Linda van den Brink;
> Phil Archer; SDW WG Public List
> *Onderwerp:* 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --


*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com