[OSGeo-Standards] Improving public comment period

[Andrew Turner]

Simple metric: page count

Also, several rounds of comment, response and comment again would make
the process more transparent. Right now with a single comment period
all concerns go into a closed meeting and emerge without any further
effective discussion.

Andrew

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Raj Singh <rsingh at opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> Note I've broken this discussion off into a new thread. I've been thinking a bit more about improving the public comment period. I think that the process could be improved if the public could comment before the specification is fully written. At that point, it's human nature that editors will resist major changes that make them do a lot of new writing, even if they like the suggestions. It's also harder to suggest significant changes to a fully developed specification.
>
> Could this group think about additional, earlier milestones that would be useful for public comment? Perhaps thinks like conceptual models, request/response patterns, or mandatory use cases to satisfy? I'll also bring up a germ of an idea I've been mulling for years, which is developing some sort of heuristic (questions, flowchart, tests, etc.) to rate a specification's level of implementation complexity.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Raj
> The OGC: Making location count.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh
>
>
> On Oct 22, at 11:13 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Raj Singh <rsingh at opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>> Still, I'd challenge the OSGeo community to think hard about how many hours they devote to standards vs. how many hours they devote to code development, and ask yourself if the sweat equity for standards has matched the sweat equity you expect from developers. I know those writing on this thread are an exception, but in general I've found it difficult to get specs reviewed or critiqued by this list. For example, I put out multiple requests on this mailing list earlier this year for participation in reviewing the WMTS specification for a potential major reworking that could have unified TMS and WMTS, and I had no response from anyone.
>>
>> Raj, about this, I know I wanted to review some of specs presented but the time allowed was too short
>> for someone that is as booked as I am.
>> It seems to me the spec closed development goes on for a long time, would it be possible to
>> get a couple of months of open comments?
>> I know it seems a lot, but it also takes a good full day to just give a cursory look at the non
>> trivial specs (the REST services one is an exception in a bad way, so large that to read and
>> understand it all it would take a few days).
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> --
>> ==
>> Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information.
>> ==
>>
>> Ing. Andrea Aime
>> @geowolf
>> Technical Lead
>>
>> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
>> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
>> 55054  Massarosa (LU)
>> Italy
>> phone: +39 0584 962313
>> fax: +39 0584 1660272
>> mob: +39 339 8844549
>>
>> http://www.geo-solutions.it
>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards



-- 
Andrew Turner
t: @ajturner
b: http://highearthorbit.com
m: 248.982.3609