Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

Thanks Ed. We'll proceed as planned then.

Jeremy
On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 14:40, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>