W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 09:37:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_0bRSfybSN+9nxQKJnrQEeC-79-93rhsE9+=RbpFa-Ynw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
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>
Hi-

Scott: I've not yet seen confirmation of the TC webinar to introduce the
SDW BP - scheduled for Mon 15-May-2017. Did I miss something?

Josh & Chris: it looks like it will be just me presenting the BP doc as
Linda and (probably) Ed will not be able to make it. Can I count on your
attendance as OAB folk to provide necessary support? Thanks.

Everyone else is welcome too!

Jeremy


On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 09:27 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <+44%207825%20382263> @edparsons
>> www.edparsons.com
>>
>
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 09:38:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 May 2017 09:38:23 UTC