Re: Proposed new release schedule for BP doc

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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>