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 13:00:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_3rvgHDUdAijXnc3SOeY86f1VsWNz9yDOdOL2PXQkrH3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Cc: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, 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>
Thank you!
On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 13:59, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
wrote:

> 1400 it is - I will schedule and announce today.
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scott -
>
> I'm on CEST that week at external meetings. So 16:00UTC won't work for me.
> Please could we go for 14:00UTC?
>
> Josh -
>
> Thanks for promising to attend!
>
> Jeremy
> On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 13:49, Joshua Lieberman <
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> It looks as if the GeoRSS session is scheduled in the portal for 11am
>> EDT. I’ll ping Raj to merge my changes to the namespace references in
>> advance.
>>
>> Jeremy, I’ll be on the road most of that day, but it shouldn’t be a
>> problem to join in both the GeoRSS and SDW BP webinars along the way.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On May 8, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I was waiting on conformation that it could be either an hour
>> before or an hour after 1500 on Monday (there is already a GeoRSS session
>> at 1500). Could you support either of those times? If so, I will schedule
>> and announce today.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On May 8, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 13:01:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 May 2017 13:01:34 UTC