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

RE: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 14:54:07 +0200
To: "'Phil Archer'" <phila@w3.org>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "'Ed Parsons'" <eparsons@google.com>
Message-ID: <00b701d2c8c3$58795410$096bfc30$@w3.org>
I was just writing a very similar email, Phil 😉

Provided Ed agrees, as Chair, a resolution passed by the BP subgroup and seems good enough. That publication should not come as a surprise to anyone. It's been announced for weeks and there's both strong evidence of active contributions to the document and a history of previous iterations that went just fine.

Francois.


> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:49 PM
> 
> 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 12:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 May 2017 12:54:24 UTC