[OSGeo-Standards] Improving public comment period

[Carl Reed]

Andrew -

Good point. Under the current P&P, the SWG an always request another comment 
period.

The only issue that could be raised is that more time and resources would be 
required to complete the standard.

Carl



-----Original Message----- 
From: Andrew Turner
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:53 AM
To: Raj Singh
Cc: Standards (OSGeo)
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] Improving public comment period

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
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Standards at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards