- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 08:27:33 +0000
- To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_3T6jSETq5yPo_oWrb5rHKai_Lstte9yNjj6ox+2LV3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Looking at the schedule for my meeting in Geneva, I'm almost certain that I will be able to present SDW BP to the TC at 15:00UTC. So let's go for that day & time. Please will you (Scott) send my details of the videoconf? On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 08:49, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote: > 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 >
Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 08:28:19 UTC