Re: Proposed working practices for SDW-IG - no more regular teleconferences

Hi Simon -

Good clarification question!

WebVMT along with MapML, CityJSON and Linked Building Data are being
handled via the W3C Strategy Funnel (with the “geospatial” tag) [1]

Each one of these “proposals” has an issue associated with it (e.g. WebVMT
is #113 [2]) where we can capture the associated meta-issues and overall
status.

We’re tracking these in the “funnel” because we expect these proposals to
eventually emerge into a full-blown standards activity in W3C and/or OGC.

The actual _work_ on these proposals are managed as per the preference of
each group. For example, Issues and Milestones etc. for WebVMT are managed
in the w3c/sdw repository (as we’ve been doing for other SDW-IG stuff), but
CityJSON is working elsewhere...

SSN Extentions along with the SDW BP, Statistics on the Web BP and other
activities aren’t included because we expect to publish these as Notes -
and the SDW IG is chartered to be able to publish Notes without having to
charter a new [Standards] WG.

Is this assumption correct for SSN Extensions? If not (and we expect to
publish as a REC) we should create an Issue in the funnel.

But... your question still prompts me that we don’t have an equivalent
mechanism to track the meta-issues and status for these Notes.

So, looking at the options in GitHub, it seems that Projects should work
for us. GitHub Projects says:
- sort tasks
- plan your project
- automate your workflow
- track progress
- share status
- wrap up

Seems like what we’re looking for. The W3C Strategy Funnel is a GitHub
Project, with Cards that map to position in the funnel e.g.
“investigation”, “exploration”, “incubation” etc.

I have created a Project for each of the SDW IG activities that we expect
to publish Notes or where we are tracking errata on previously published
RECs (see below), with default Cards “To do”, “In Progress” and “Done”
based on the “Kanban (Automated)” template. Activity leads should feel free
to customise this to suit their preferred workflow.

I’ve not created a Project for QB4ST or EO-QB ... I don’t think we’re
seeing any progress here for now. We can always create projects later.

One open question is whether we create a Project for “new proposals”? I’m
thinking not, as we have the Funnel for stuff that might end up as a REC
and we can discuss in the mailing list or simply raise a GitHub Issue to
capture the discussion until we collectively agree that we should create a
new Project in w3c/sdw (or not!).

- Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices:
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/1
- Statistical Data on the Web: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/2
- SSN/SOSA ontology amendments: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/3
- SSN Primer: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/4
- Time ontology amendments: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/5
- Describing moving objects: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/6
- SSN extensions: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/7
- Video geotagging format (WebVMT): https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/8
- Geospatial Web Roadmap: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/9

The next step for activity leads is to allocate their open tasks to the
projects and to add some text for the project description.

So Simon - does this meet your needs?

Cheers, Jeremy


[1]:
https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2/?card_filter_query=label%3Ageospatial

[2]: https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/113

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 at 08:15, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Thanks Jeremy & Linda –
>
>
>
> Your instructions about use of GitHub comments, issues, prs etc are fine
> as a general outline.
>
> However, I don’t see a proposal for how the /proposals/ will be dealt
> with.
>
> There are a couple of fairly mature proposals there:
>
> ·         https://w3c.github.io/sdw/proposals/geotagging/webvmt/
>
> ·         https://w3c.github.io/sdw/proposals/ssn-extensions/
>
> Is there a plan for how these will be processed?
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 21 April, 2018 02:36
> *To:* Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; Linda van den Brink <
> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; public-sdwig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Proposed working practices for SDW-IG - no more regular
> teleconferences
>
>
>
> Hello SDW-IG folks...
>
>
>
> It’s been a while since we had a [plenary] teleconference; it’s been
> difficult to find times that suit participants from all time-zones, and now
> that we’re in boreal summer, it’s even more difficult.
>
>
>
> So earlier this week, Linda, François, Bill, Michael and myself met
> (virtually) to figure out if teleconferences were essential - and, if not,
> what alternatives we could use. Minutes [1]
>
>
>
> We concluded that we don’t need the regular teleconferences. Instead we
> will aim to complete our work by correspondence using GitHub and the SDW-IG
> mailing list.
>
>
>
> That said, this will put more emphasis on our F2F meetings to discuss and
> debate complex issues. The next one is planned as a side-event during the
> upcoming OGC Technical Committee meeting in Fort Collins, CO (USA) which
> runs from 4-8 June.
>
>
>
> Also, if we find there’s a need to talk about a specific issue, we can
> simply schedule an ad-hoc WebEx (or whatever) at any time. François can set
> up WebEx calls as required.
>
>
>
> Below are some recommendations about how to work in GitHub to keep things
> moving along. Working in this way will likely require the activity leaders
> (like Bill, Michael, Armin) and IG chairs to “animate the show” to keep up
> momentum of activity.
>
>    1. Make sure comments raised here and there appear in a GitHub issue -
>    and raise a new issue if comments don’t seem to have a home
>    2. Make sure issues are labelled/tagged correctly
>    3. Consider grouping sets of related issues into Milestones to make it
>    easier to track progress
>    4. Make sure issues are assigned to someone - or, if no one is willing
>    to lead, then write a comment to that effect ... most likely this will mean
>    that work on that issue will stall or progress very slowly
>    5. Make sure that proposed resolutions to issues get reviewed
>    6. Make sure that Pull Requests (PR) are linked to issues - as this
>    makes the PR review easier to complete (e.g. it should be obvious what the
>    change is and why it is proposed)
>    7. Regularly ping assignees to check on progress
>    8. Set deadlines
>    9. Close issues when appropriate - so that we can focus on the open
>    ones
>
>
>
> While GitHub issues often relate to very specific topics, we can still use
> issues to capture broader discussions too.
>
>
>
> Pretty much, these are already things that we’re doing in the IG. Thank
> you!
>
>
>
> We’ve configured the mailing list to capture everything that the GitHub
> mailer sends out - so there’s no escape even if you’re not paying close
> attention in GitHub, albeit its not particularly easy to follow those
> threads because the labelling/tagging isn’t evident. François says we can
> amend these settings if we find it’s not meeting our needs (e.g. volume of
> email on the list from GitHub starts to become an irritant!). Indeed, he
> took an action to see if we can get the GitHub labels/tags and milestones
> included in the mailing list - so long as the GitHub mailer API supports
> that!
>
>
>
> Having a regular schedule of calls helps keep pace on things...
>
>
>
> In addition to assigning deadlines on specific issues, we’re also
> suggesting that we identify 2-3 days in the first week of each month where
> we, the IG membership, will have a focused “sprint” on moving things
> forward. This should help us plan our time and participation.
>
>
>
> We’ll use the same days for all the plenary and sub-group activities - no
> reason why they can’t all be done in parallel.
>
>
>
> To help this along, we (editors and sub-group leads) will write a short
> “editorial” or monthly summary outlining the priority issues and topics to
> try and focus the work.
>
>
>
> We’ll kick this off next week, with the first “sprint” at the beginning of
> May. I’ll do a plenary “editorial” too.
>
>
>
> Finally, we talked about whether we needed multiple repositories for our
> work; e.g. one for each sub-group. For now, we’ll stick with a single
> repository. If we find this gets too crowded/congested, we can adapt!
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you’re happy with this approach. As a minimum, it
> should mean an end to regular late night/early morning calls!
>
>
>
> Best regards, Jeremy & Linda
>
>
>
> [1]: https://www.w3.org/2018/04/17-sdw-minutes.html
>
>
>