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

Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:49:27 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <efdb3e65-976a-1393-651d-e5f1d885c1bf@w3.org>
Hmm...

We need a record of the resolution to publish. To date, this WG has 
always made such resolutions in plenary calls. However, speaking 
personally, I'd be happy to argue that a resolution passed by the BP 
Subgroup that referenced support for the publication in the mail archive 
would be sufficient.

WDYT François?

Phil

On 09/05/2017 13:13, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
Data Strategist, W3C
http://www.w3.org/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 12:49:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 May 2017 12:49:38 UTC