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

Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 13:39:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHrFjcmqBHv4e4QFHx-i9i72u78FMTxVk-WV_oQ_Jk7mrs04zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 May 2017 13:40:47 UTC