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: Tue, 09 May 2017 12:13:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_2z0=6QNC7ts01634XHe6258kvadsoP8xMgcJRp4bqNbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, ssimmons@opengeospatial.org
Cc: eparsons@google.com, l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl, jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com, chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk, portele@interactive-instruments.de, fd@w3.org, phila@w3.org, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Phil, François

I may have missed the email, but can you confirm whether the WG vote to
release the BP draft will need to wait until the plenary call next week?

And if so, does this mean that the publication to w3.org will also be
delayed? (I'm assuming so!)

Thanks, Jeremy

On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 00:51 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Possibly only Josh in attendance in St Johns who has much vision of these
> activities.
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Simmons [mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 9 May, 2017 09:00
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Cc:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Ed Parsons <
> eparsons@google.com>; Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
> Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>; Chris Little <
> chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Clemens Portele <
> portele@interactive-instruments.de>; Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; Phil
> Archer <phila@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc
>
>
>
> Simon,
>
>
>
> We will, but since they are intended to be standards, we probably should
> do both in person in St. John’s or schedule more lead time for a webinar.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 4:43 PM, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you also need briefings on SSN and OWL-Time?
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 8 May 2017 9:37:35 AM
> *To:* Ed Parsons; Linda van den Brink; Scott Simmons; Joshua Lieberman;
> Chris Little
> *Cc:* Clemens Portele; Francois Daoust; Phil Archer; SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc
>
>
>
> 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 Tuesday, 9 May 2017 12:14:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 May 2017 12:14:41 UTC