QoSE DWG meeting		
13th November 2018 at 15 UTC
Online

Present:
Ilkka Rinne (IR, Spatineo, chair)
Sonia Trentin (ST, Natural Resources Canada)
MIchael Gordon (MG, Ordnance Survey)

Meeting minutes

1. Opening
The meeting was opened by IR (chair) at 15:08 UTC

2. Testbed 14 QoSE ER Review

IR told that the document 18-028 "OGC Testbed-14 WMS QoSE Engineering Report" had been posted in Pending on 31st October, and that the ER team is expecting the primary WG comments to be addressed before the Charlotte TC. IR asked whether the participants had had time to look at the document. ST said they had had the Testbed meeting that morning, the first draft of the document was ready and and the NRCan people had already made some comments. MG said that he had had a look on document to get an overview, and hoped to be able to go through the whole thing by the deadline, and provide comments if there were any.

IR told that each the Testbed ERs need to be reviewed by a DWG, and QoSE DWG had promised to review this one. He suggested that he collects the WG comments and sends them to the ER team. ST asked if it was OK that she had already posted some comments. IR replied that it was not a problem, clearly NRCan as the sponsor had a role to provide comments for the ER draft also separately from the WG review. ST told that she would ask her manager Cindy Mitchell if she wanted her to share the NRCan comments to the QoSE WG, and if yes, ST could certainly do so after the meeting.

IR told that he had not got an actual deadline for sending the WG comments, but based on the general information posted to the TB14 QoSE mailing list, the deadline for the ER team to post a version of the ER document with the primary WG comments take into account, was Wednesday the 21st of November. IR suggested that if he had the WG comments compiled by Monday evening the 16th Nov., there would be enough time for the ER team to make the reviewed version in time. IR told that he would send the note to the QoSE DWG mailing list about the ER review.

MG asked if the ER document was available in a format other the PDF allowing adding comments directly to document. IR told that the PDF version was the one posted in the Pending folder. The document was being worked on in Github, but he was not sure if the version there was the version intended for review. MG told that he would then send the his possible comments to IR by email and refer to the page and section.

IR told that there was also another commenting period after the 21st Nov, but anything else that editorial comments during this secondary period was discouraged, so the best time for the review was before the 21st Nov.

3. Joint meeting with the Data Quality DWG at Charlotte

IR told that he had set an email to the Data Quality DWG proposing a joint meeting and also made a preliminary session slot reservation for Tue 11th December. The DQ members had requested more information about the proposed topics of interest are issues between the two groups. IR told that he was not sure if QoSE DWG could provide that kind of list in time to be able to set up the joint meeting at Charlotte. He had also noticed that the DQ DWG had reserved a slot of their own in the Charlotte TC agenda anyway. IR asked the participants for suggestions on whether to try and proceed with the idea of a joint QoSE/DQ meeting at the Charlotte TC or to have a traditional QoSE DWG meeting instead. 

MG commented that probably the thing would be in how the data quality issues affect the quality of service or the quality of experience for the users or  vice versa, but he was not sure this would be definitive enough for a common topic, but there certainly was a link there that could be explored. MG suggested that we (the QoSE DWG) would have our own meeting, but would especially invite the DQ DWG members to join and add their own views and this discussion could be a start for finding the common ground without a specific joint session. IR told that this sounded like a good approach, ST agreed. IR promised to send an email to the DQ DWG requesting an overview presentation of the DQ DWG current issues to be held in Tue 11th Dec to-be-renamed QoSE DWG session.

4. QoSE DWG flyer to OGC member

IR started by asking if the participants had any new ideas on how and if this idea of creating a flyer about what QoSE DWG is and why new OGC member organisations should become active in the group. MG commented that maybe this kind of outreach would work better if the message was more targeted to particular groups, and not focused on the DWG itself.

He suggested that maybe we could target some of the OGC SWGs , specifically WMS, WMTS and maybe the joint "next gen" OGC services groups, pointing out that it would in in their interest to become active in our group to have a say on how the QoS related things should be handled in the standards in their charters. The means to do that could be either email or presentations in their WG meetings. IR said that this was a good comment, and that it really depended on whether we wanted to get new OGC member organisations and representatives interested in the QoSE DWG work or to involve the members that are already involved in the OGC activities. MG commented that in his view it would more sense to first try to involve the people who are already active in the OGC, and try and show them the value of addressing QoSE issues. The QoSE DWG could approach SWGs like WMS and WMTS with the fact that there is an engineering report dealing especially with QoSE issues in those standards, and stating that therefore it should be of interest to those groups to be involved in the QoSE DWG.

ST agreed to what MG proposed. She also asked if there were examples of doing similar outreach activities done by other OGC WGs, and experiences no how these activities had worked. Perhaps some best practice on getting more people involved and targeting these activities. IR replied that he did not know of such best practices, and added that this activities should anyhow be closely coordinated with the OGC staff.

IR proposed to bring this issue up again in the Charlotte TC meeting, and discuss the matter with the OGC staff before that to get feedback on what their view would be on the best way to target the activation messages.

5. Any other business

The expected participation to the Charlotte TC was discussed briefly: IR is not going to be joining in person, but can make it online, MG is likely to be there in person, ST mentioned that she could not make it, but would check if some other people from NRCan would be able to make in in person. MG commented that since NRCan had just become a strategic member of the OGC it would be likely that some people would participate the meeting.

6. Closing

The meeting was closed by IR at 15:36 UTC