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

> so will have to see if it works

Agreed!

Re Milestones, I see these as things that might be created to bundle
resolution of a number of Issues into a particular release. Have been doing
this on one of my other projects.

Jeremy

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 at 21:46, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Ø  Is this assumption correct for SSN Extensions?
>
> Yes – a Note is what I was looking for.
>
> These ideas have not been implemented much yet, so want to get it out
> there for testing.
>
>
>
> So now we have a GitHub ‘Project’ for ssn-extensions.
>
> I haven’t used those before, so will have to see if it works. (I just
> tried to trigger use of ‘Milestones’ in the DXWG, but not much takeup so
> far.)
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 April, 2018 19:58
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Cc:* fd@w3.org; l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl; public-sdwig@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>
>