- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 13:39:57 +0000
- To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHrFjcmqBHv4e4QFHx-i9i72u78FMTxVk-WV_oQ_Jk7mrs04zA@mail.gmail.com>
I concur I don't see any problem holding the vote tomorrow, the BP calls do tend to have high participation from the interested people... Ed On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 14:17 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks both. > > I await confirmation from Ed that he's happy with this approach. > > Jeremy > On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 13:54, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: > >> 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 <07825%20382263> <+44%207825%20382263> @edparsons >> > >> www.edparsons.com >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> > Phil Archer >> > Data Strategist, W3C >> > http://www.w3.org/ >> > >> > http://philarcher.org >> > +44 (0)7887 767755 <07887%20767755> >> > @philarcher1 >> >> >> >> -- *Ed Parsons *FRGS Geospatial Technologist, Google +44 7825 382263 @edparsons www.edparsons.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 13:40:46 UTC