Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-04-29


IRC Name Present Apologies
_chrisfl Chris Fleming y
Eugene Eugene Usvitsky y
Firefishy Grant Slater y
apmon Kai Krueger y
mkl Mikel Maron y
RichardF Richard Fairhurst y
rweait Richard Weait y
samlarsen1 Sam Larsen y
stevenfeldman Steven Feldman y
toffehoff Henk Hoff y
TomH Tom Hughes y
twain47 Brian Quinion y
wonderchook Kate Chapman from :36 y
Also attending
IRC handle Name
SteveC Steve Coast

Minutes (draft)

  • Proposed by: Henk Hoff
  • Seconded by: Eugene Usvitsky
  • None opposed. Minutes accepted.
  • Agenda
  • SWG functionality
  • Richard to summarize attendance to date. Done.
  • Is SWG attendance an issue? Are any actions required?
  • Attendance needs to improve from SWG members. Members voted without opposition to adapt the SWG attendance requirements to include the following:
  • Those with current unexcused absences are now excused with a warning.
  • In future two unexcused absences in 90 days will lead to expulsion from the SWG.
  • SWG members who are unable to attend more than 60% of meetings should withdraw.
  • web site front page.
  • Lively discussion of front page. actions:
  • we collect all the ideas
  • code small improvements of our choice
  • Iterate to greater changes
  • further discussion with change lists next meeting.
  • OSMF Articles of Association Update
  • engagement with community: call for participation went out. No response yet.
  • next AoA sub-committee meeting 02 May 2011 @ 1700UTC
  • next meeting Friday 06 May 2011 @ 1600UTC


(11:59:54 AM) rweait: *** Logging Begins ***
(11:59:59 AM) mkl1: let's get a ping from attendees
(12:00:02 PM) chrisfl_: hi
(12:00:09 PM) toffehoff: Hi
(12:00:13 PM) Firefishy: hi
(12:00:33 PM) SteveC: ho
(12:00:34 PM) rweait: ack
(12:01:09 PM) rweait: and have folks give a look at the previous minut4es for approval...
(12:01:26 PM) rweait:
(12:01:31 PM) Eugene: hi
(12:01:54 PM) Firefishy: ping RichardF, apmon, TomH, twain47
(12:01:55 PM) toffehoff: I propose.
(12:02:00 PM) mkl1: one sec
(12:02:13 PM) mkl1: I was present to chair
(12:02:18 PM) rweait: Eugene, looks like you beat the traffic.  ;-)
(12:02:48 PM) rweait: RichardF offered apologies.  He's out mapping. 
(12:02:55 PM) TomH: pong
(12:03:01 PM) mkl1: rweait, can you remove that note
(12:03:09 PM) Eugene: rweait: i simply preferred to attend SWG meeting instead of my school anniversary :)
(12:03:30 PM) rweait: mkl1: which note?
(12:03:31 PM) mkl1: I'm attending instead of enjoying sunshine
(12:03:37 PM) mkl1: " Meeting chaired by Henk in absence of Mikel. "
(12:03:41 PM) toffehoff: mkl1, you're right. Mkl was chairng.
(12:03:51 PM) rweait: shall doo.  sorry, that was copied from pervisou minutes. 
(12:04:16 PM) mkl1: cool, otherwise good
(12:04:27 PM) mkl1: just need a second
(12:04:57 PM) apmon: Hi
(12:05:02 PM) rweait: minutes of 22 April amended. 
(12:05:07 PM) mkl1: thx rweait
(12:05:20 PM) mkl1: someone please second, and then let's get into it
(12:05:32 PM) Eugene: I second.
(12:05:41 PM) rweait: tahnk you both. 
(12:05:52 PM) toffehoff: rweait: amended? I don't see a difference....
(12:06:04 PM) rweait: I just saved it.  try again.
(12:06:11 PM) mkl1: cool
(12:06:11 PM) toffehoff: Yep!
(12:06:18 PM) mkl1: Agenda items?
(12:06:28 PM) mkl1: Front page, AoA, attendance
(12:06:31 PM) mkl1: Anything else?
(12:06:53 PM) rweait: next meeting: same/same ?
(12:07:08 PM) SteveC: maybe do that in reverse order, get the small things out the way?
(12:07:21 PM) mkl1: sure
(12:07:30 PM) mkl1: so a couple things
(12:07:50 PM) mkl1: rweait sent a summary of attendance, we need to act on that
(12:08:12 PM) mkl1: and i think we need to look at a slight modification to the attendance rule
(12:08:19 PM) mkl1: right now, 2 strikes and you're out
(12:08:40 PM) mkl1: i propose it be 2 strikes, and we discuss actions, including out
(12:08:40 PM) apmon: 2 consecutive, or two in general?
(12:09:02 PM) Eugene: in general
(12:09:40 PM) mkl1: i just think we don't automatically want to kick out Firefishy and wonderchook
(12:09:40 PM) toffehoff: Was it not 2 un-appologized absence?
(12:09:53 PM) mkl1: toffehoff, right
(12:09:54 PM) rweait: toffehoff: yes
(12:09:55 PM) apmon: mkl1: sounds sensible. It might be worth only counting the misses in the last X month though, rather than in general
(12:10:18 PM) mkl1: apmon, that makes sense
(12:10:26 PM) mkl1: Can we quickly have a vote 
(12:10:35 PM) SteveC: -1
(12:10:39 PM) ***Firefishy notes he has only been absent without apology once :) Minutes have been corrected.
(12:10:46 PM) apmon: Can you state exactly what we are voting on?
(12:10:47 PM) mkl1: Ok ... what do you think SteveC?
(12:10:58 PM) rweait: Firefishy: rweait has been corrected.  Minutes were right,
(12:11:09 PM) rweait: Sorry again for the mind-wobble.
(12:11:42 PM) SteveC: I don't mind what the actual rule is - but personally I think there should be something that is actually adhered to, otherwise what's the point if exceptions are to be made routinely? Either have it or don't, basically. Half measures just suck time, like the time right now.
(12:12:27 PM) rweait: from my summary (corrected) Absence leaders: Mikel-6, RichardF-5, Kate-4
(12:12:43 PM) rweait: Unexcused absence leaders: Kate-3, four others tied with 1
(12:14:14 PM) apmon: Do excused absence play a role as well? 
(12:14:14 PM) toffehoff: We would like to have members in the WG who actually are involved. 
(12:14:37 PM) mkl1: Yea, it's important, because we need to make quorum too
(12:14:48 PM) mkl1: So then are we happy with the rule as is?
(12:14:51 PM) rweait: apmon, we never specified.  Do you have a preference? 
(12:15:01 PM) toffehoff: Absence apologized or not, in general is not helpfull
(12:15:20 PM) SteveC: maybe a warning, and a statement that we really mean the rule from now on, this time, honest
(12:15:28 PM) chrisfl_: SteveC +1
(12:15:36 PM) toffehoff: Having people absent for a long time, but are apologizing each time does not look like they are involved.
(12:15:36 PM) apmon: perhaps if you make less than e.g. 60% of meetings (excused or not) over a 3 month period, you need to reconsider
(12:16:18 PM) toffehoff: apmon: sounds realistic.
(12:16:41 PM) rweait: are we discussing attendance in general, or dealing with one issue at hand?
(12:16:42 PM) mkl1: +1 to Steve's suggestion. And let's just add that habitual apologizers need to be considered, ala apmon
(12:17:05 PM) rweait: propose a vote mkl1?
(12:17:06 PM) Eugene left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
(12:18:26 PM) mkl1: Propose: "We are waiving past absences with a warning. From now on, 2 unexcused absences in a 3 month period means leaving the WG. And If 60% of meetings unattended, please consider leaving the group"
(12:18:28 PM) Eugene [] entered the room.
(12:18:44 PM) mkl1: I also propose we only discuss this once of month, or less often!
(12:18:54 PM) chrisfl_: :)
(12:19:03 PM) mkl1: quick vote, so we can move on with it
(12:19:05 PM) SteveC: +e^(i.Pi) + 2
(12:19:12 PM) apmon: +1
(12:19:16 PM) chrisfl_: +1
(12:19:18 PM) rweait: mkl1: nope.  If attendance falls below 60%, not 40%
(12:19:39 PM) mkl1: Still minus one Steve?
(12:19:47 PM) ***SteveC looks sheepish
(12:19:51 PM) SteveC: that adds up to +1 :-)
(12:19:58 PM) SteveC: I think anyway
(12:20:00 PM) Eugene: er-r... Could someone please tell me what are we voting for? :)
(12:20:01 PM) SteveC: I need coffee
(12:20:02 PM) mkl1: oh, oops ... yes :)
(12:20:14 PM) mkl1: rweait: yes that's right
(12:20:26 PM) apmon: Eugene: mkl1 04/29/2011 10:18:26 AM
(12:20:28 PM) apmon: Propose: "We are waiving past absences with a warning. From now on, 2 unexcused absences in a 3 month period means leaving the WG. And If 60% of meetings unattended, please consider leaving the group"
(12:20:41 PM) mkl1: Propose: "We are waiving past absences with a warning. From now on, 2 unexcused absences in a 3 month period means leaving the WG. And If less than 60% of meetings unattended, please consider leaving the group"
(12:20:57 PM) Eugene: Thanks. I agree.
(12:21:03 PM) apmon: although the question is 40% attendance or 60% attendance
(12:21:06 PM) rweait: abstain. 
(12:21:19 PM) mkl1: I think it's 60% attendance
(12:21:26 PM) rweait: You might decouple the votes in future.  You have two issues in one vote. 
(12:22:11 PM) mkl1: rweait: can you show us the way here (so we can move on!)
(12:22:20 PM) apmon: mkl1: Your "propose" needs to be augmeneted from unattended to attended though
(12:22:46 PM) rweait: vote A) Propose: We are waiving past absences with a warning.
(12:22:47 PM) mkl1: Someone else write this, I'm having some semantic problems :)
(12:23:00 PM) rweait: Vote B) From now on, 2 unexcused absences in a 3 month period means leaving the WG.
(12:23:54 PM) rweait: Vote C) And If attendance falls below 60% you should withdraw from the WG.
(12:23:55 PM) SteveC: +2
(12:23:59 PM) SteveC: ok +3
(12:24:03 PM) mkl1: +3
(12:24:08 PM) apmon: Are there any oposers to either? Otherwise, we don't need to split it
(12:24:09 PM) SteveC: I think we should have a vote on how to vote
(12:24:19 PM) rweait: abstain.
(12:24:22 PM) rweait: ;-)
(12:24:43 PM) mkl1: :P
(12:25:05 PM) apmon: rweait: Which part do you abstain from (in the original vote)?
(12:25:22 PM) toffehoff: Vote c) If attendance falls below 60% during the last three months, you should withdraw from the WG
(12:25:35 PM) mkl1: this is rweait's last meeting
(12:26:07 PM) apmon: OK. Well, whats the result of the vote then?
(12:26:18 PM) rweait: those opposed?
(12:26:56 PM) mkl1: none opposed
(12:27:04 PM) toffehoff: With my amended vote c: +3
(12:27:12 PM) rweait: I'll minute that way.  
(12:27:23 PM) mkl1: cool
(12:27:33 PM) Firefishy: Why rweait's last meeting?
(12:27:36 PM) mkl1: thought i was going to poke my eyes out for a minute there!
(12:28:13 PM) mkl1: rweait let us know last time that he's leaving the group, too many commitments
(12:28:16 PM) rweait: Firefishy: I'm withdrawing from swg effective tomorrow.  Other obligations.
(12:28:44 PM) ***SteveC has a sad
(12:29:00 PM) mkl1: Yea, it's a loss. So I for one want to propose a very hearty thank you for rweait's wrangling of the minutes and other duties in SWG
(12:29:02 PM) apmon: rweait: Thank you for the work you put into SWG
(12:29:59 PM) chrisfl_: Indeed you will be missed
(12:30:19 PM) mkl1: 30 minutes left in the era of rweait ... let's get into Front Page :)
(12:30:56 PM) mkl1: There's been a lot of discussion, and we're moving into the same circles as we've been in the past few years
(12:31:12 PM) toffehoff: afk for a moment....
(12:31:13 PM) mkl1: Does anyone have a suggestion how we can move on this?
(12:31:43 PM) rweait: subcommittee of doers, to build a coherent new from page to the prototype stage.
(12:31:46 PM) SteveC: 1) pick one small thing 2) go actually do it
(12:31:58 PM) apmon: SteveC: +1
(12:32:34 PM) chrisfl_: I agree, best way forward is lots of small changes
(12:33:11 PM) mkl1: Does feel good to actually do something
(12:33:22 PM) rweait: chrisfl_ but how is that the mandate of SWG?  Surely that is "operational"
(12:33:52 PM) chrisfl_: true - I guess we need to "empower" those who are actually going to do the changes.
(12:33:54 PM) mkl1: No one is operating on improving usability
(12:34:01 PM) rweait: small things happen all the time.  style tweaks.  New cool tile proxies...
(12:34:06 PM) SteveC: er
(12:34:12 PM) SteveC: they really don't, not to the front page
(12:34:12 PM) TomH: chrisfl_: in what way are they not "empowered" now?
(12:34:14 PM) apmon: Imho strategic should try and collect data on what are the top things preventing more people on joining
(12:34:23 PM) SteveC: unless '
(12:34:33 PM) SteveC: 'all the time' means 'when andy can get round to it'
(12:34:50 PM) SteveC: and cool tile proxy isn't really a front page innovation?
(12:34:56 PM) chrisfl_: TomH - possibly just take any grief for changes.
(12:35:09 PM) SteveC: tell you what - I have one small thing I will go do today, let me show you
(12:35:11 PM) chrisfl_: rather than having the decision on your shoulders.
(12:35:13 PM) mkl1: who here has commit access? i think choosing one small thing and doing it would be a good start
(12:35:25 PM) apmon: TomH: Can you tell me what you would need from the OSB branch to consider it for merging?
(12:35:30 PM) TomH: it's git - everybody has commit access ;-)
(12:35:35 PM) SteveC: Go look at this logo:
(12:35:40 PM) TomH: you just have to persuade me to merge your change
(12:35:43 PM) SteveC: The guy has explicitly licensed it CC
(12:36:02 PM) SteveC: I'll add it to OSM, then it can be TomH's fault for not accepting the merge and deploy
(12:36:05 PM) apmon: TomH: Well, how do I go about doing that?
(12:36:06 PM) SteveC: :-)
(12:36:15 PM) TomH: apmon: well that's a big thing so I would need to review it to see, but the big problem there is that I would want to have an in house OSB instance behind it
(12:36:34 PM) apmon: There is an in house OSB instance behind it
(12:36:35 PM) mkl1: SteveC ... now that is so purely cosmetic. It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken updating their Logo
(12:36:41 PM) wonderchook [~katechapm@] entered the room.
(12:36:47 PM) SteveC: TomH: personally I don't think OSB is the right approach, it should be part of the rails port
(12:36:47 PM) TomH: apmon: err... what instance would that be exactly?
(12:36:56 PM) mkl1: How about: improve the email sent to new users
(12:36:57 PM) SteveC: mkl1: come on seriously, it's a much nicer version
(12:37:00 PM) TomH: SteveC: I would prefer that to be honest as I have said many times
(12:37:07 PM) apmon: TomH: I know it is a big thing, that is why I am asking what I need to do until you consider it worth putting in the effort for reviewing
(12:37:07 PM) SteveC: TomH: :-)
(12:37:42 PM) apmon: SteveC: TomH:
(12:38:05 PM) mkl1: how about ... everyone here make one small change, and bombard TomH with merge requests :)
(12:38:09 PM) TomH: apmon: I just merged your changes BTW
(12:38:15 PM) apmon: TomH: Thanks
(12:38:15 PM) SteveC: TomH: how is rails 3 coming BTW?
(12:39:02 PM) TomH: oh it mostly works, but there's an issue with our multi-part primary keys that is giving me grief
(12:39:11 PM) TomH: that's the only thing causing test failures now though
(12:39:16 PM) mkl1: We're getting offtopic...
(12:39:19 PM) SteveC: right
(12:39:23 PM) mkl1: How about this for a plan
(12:39:45 PM) apmon: TomH: It (The OSB branch) is fully integrated into the rails_port and has no external dependancies on anything (other than perhaps during transition)
(12:40:09 PM) TomH: oh ok - I thought it talked to an OSB server
(12:40:10 PM) mkl1: All of us make a list of 5-10 things we'd change on, usability focused. Collect a list together somewhere.
(12:40:16 PM) TomH: I will try and review it in the next few weeks
(12:40:20 PM) SteveC: design by commitee?
(12:40:23 PM) mkl1: And each of us implement 1 of our top lists
(12:40:23 PM) apmon: TomH: great thanks
(12:40:33 PM) mkl1: 1 from our top lists
(12:40:36 PM) SteveC: mkl1: better to just appoint one person to do something wholistic
(12:40:46 PM) mkl1: No, just to get the ideas out there
(12:40:53 PM) wonderchook: yeah I don't think knowing how to program should be required 
(12:40:55 PM) SteveC: the ideas aren't out there already?
(12:40:57 PM) wonderchook: well to help with design
(12:41:10 PM) chrisfl_: so we're really at a get all the idea's written and prioritise?
(12:41:35 PM) mkl1: chrisfl_ i think that would help tons in ending the circular discussions
(12:41:47 PM) TomH: there's no point writing a big list of ideas and putting them in order because you have no way to make people work on them - people will only work on the things they want to work on, not on what you order them to
(12:42:03 PM) mkl1: no one is working on usability
(12:42:31 PM) chrisfl_: Hopefully people will want to work on changes if they know there is a good chance they'll get implemented? 
(12:42:31 PM) SteveC: wonderchook: and I have opinions on Fukushima despite not being a nuclear engineer, but it's much better to have people work on design who... know how to design and build things
(12:42:33 PM) apmon: You can't make people work on specific ideas, but if they aren't listed anywhere, no one will work on them either
(12:42:35 PM) mkl1: that's why i like SteveC's idea to just implement anything, just to get rolling
(12:42:56 PM) wonderchook: SteveC: well, I think that people who know CSS and some HTML as designers are better
(12:42:58 PM) apmon: chrisfl_: +1
(12:43:10 PM) wonderchook: I'm just saying it is difficult was all that you have to implement what you want done
(12:43:18 PM) wonderchook: of course as a rails dev myself I should shut-up;)
(12:43:19 PM) SteveC: wonderchook: I take that under the umbrella of 'knowing programming' in this context though :-)
(12:44:08 PM) toffehoff: I'm back
(12:44:12 PM) SteveC: Here's another angle - how do we make the front page sexy to work on?
(12:44:22 PM) SteveC: Matt and others want to work on database problems, not the front page
(12:44:26 PM) SteveC: why is that?
(12:44:36 PM) SteveC: well, the lists are full of trolls who will flame them
(12:44:45 PM) SteveC: so how do we protect those people from the bozos?
(12:44:46 PM) apmon: less controversial
(12:44:47 PM) chrisfl_: because changes to the front page are opening yourselfs to flaming.
(12:44:48 PM) mkl1: i don't think contributors are confident their contributions would be picked up
(12:44:56 PM) rweait: SteveC: move the map to, and have index.html as a crossing guard page.
(12:44:56 PM) SteveC: TomH: what do you think, do I have it right or wrong?
(12:45:18 PM) SteveC: rweait: what's a crossing guard page?
(12:45:21 PM) Eugene left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
(12:45:38 PM) rweait: You want your buisiness on OSM -> go to editing for beginners.
(12:45:42 PM) wonderchook: rweait: yeah so it explains the project and what it is for
(12:45:49 PM) mkl1: rweait: there's thousands of links out there to specific map links, with lat,lon. just would need to be careful there
(12:45:59 PM) rweait: you want to put a map on your web page -> consuming OSM for beginners.
(12:46:08 PM) Eugene [~eugene@] entered the room.
(12:46:13 PM) TomH: SteveC: It's very hard to do small things on the front page - there are lots of things people have suggested but real estate is always a major issue because most of the ideas revolve around adding something to it
(12:46:24 PM) rweait: mkl1: yes.  It needs somebody smart to do it.  NOt just a redirect.
(12:46:24 PM) SteveC: right
(12:46:40 PM) TomH: I am in favour of doing something major like making the map smaller to give us more space to play with, with a click through to a large map
(12:46:47 PM) mkl1: also, if you're signed in, and have already seen that page, and don't want the "tip of the day" or whatever, it should just go straight to the map
(12:46:49 PM) SteveC: and also - having a big list of crap to add to the page isn't "design". Design is taking away things, not adding them.
(12:46:57 PM) ***chrisfl_ wonders if you could have both, a map underneath a more textual opening page that slides away?
(12:46:59 PM) TomH: true
(12:47:13 PM) TomH: but taking things away will lead to screams of angiush on the lists ;-)
(12:47:20 PM) SteveC: fuck the lists
(12:47:31 PM) chrisfl_: SteveC +1  
(12:47:43 PM) rweait: depending on the list a scream of anguish is a sign of success. 
(12:47:44 PM) SteveC: if you're gonna make an omellete you gotta break some eggs right
(12:47:50 PM) mkl1: RichardF was very right ... we've let OSM be taking hostage to anyone who posts to talk
(12:47:58 PM) SteveC: _whatever_ we do will upset some people
(12:48:10 PM) SteveC: mkl1: where did he make that point?
(12:48:16 PM) Eugene: +1 Have you seen my pictures? I tried to leave as much current style as could but added some asked things
(12:48:20 PM) chrisfl_: In general people will alkways resist change
(12:48:27 PM) apmon: There have been design suggestions for a portal front page
(12:48:27 PM) SteveC: Eugene: URL?
(12:48:44 PM) mkl1: SteveC on strategic list
(12:48:49 PM) Eugene:
(12:48:53 PM) SteveC: oh The Thread Of Doom
(12:49:14 PM) Eugene: and with explanations
(12:49:17 PM) rweait: I like this one --->
(12:49:24 PM) SteveC: Eugene: interesting - see my SOTM Girona talk?
(12:49:38 PM) Eugene: SteveC: no :(
(12:49:43 PM) SteveC: go watch it
(12:49:48 PM) Eugene: :)
(12:49:54 PM) rweait: we'll wait.  ;-)
(12:49:56 PM) SteveC: or one of them anyway
(12:50:10 PM) SteveC: so
(12:50:11 PM) mkl1: Ok .. have we gotten anywhere?
(12:50:16 PM) SteveC: yeah we have
(12:50:23 PM) SteveC: how many rails coders are there here?
(12:50:25 PM) apmon: rweait: That looks similar to the portal ideas that seemed to have received reasonably positive replies in the german forum (
(12:50:30 PM) SteveC: its like me, mikel, tom, kate right?
(12:50:43 PM) SteveC: basically we have to do some actual work, that's all
(12:50:52 PM) SteveC: otherwise TomH will hit us with his clue bat
(12:51:24 PM) SteveC: what the actual change is, is kind of secondary, there's a bunch of simple obvious small and big things
(12:51:25 PM) chrisfl_: yes. 
(12:51:30 PM) rweait: apmon: we even used that one in CAnada for a while. 
(12:51:57 PM) rweait: any actions to assign on the minutes?
(12:51:58 PM) mkl1: i suggest ... 1) we collect all the ideas 2) have us coders commit to doing some small change on the site, our choosing 3) after that, iterate our plan to a more wholesale redesign
(12:52:23 PM) mkl1: 3 means ... not design by committee, but figure out how to make that happen
(12:52:29 PM) SteveC: that makes sense mkl1 but can I ask we spend a couple of minutes on ther other problem -
(12:52:34 PM) Eugene: We are collecting ideas for 3 weeks now. And what have we collected?
(12:52:36 PM) mkl1: which is?
(12:52:51 PM) mkl1: Eugene: it's all tied up in chats and emails
(12:52:53 PM) SteveC: how do we convince say, matt, to ignore the list bozos and free them to just do what they think is right
(12:53:00 PM) SteveC: matt as a random example
(12:53:04 PM) SteveC: it applies more widely
(12:53:12 PM) apmon: Eugene: Do we have a list of concrete  things (specs) yet for any acceptable change?
(12:53:15 PM) chrisfl_: Maybe we need to ask? 
(12:53:20 PM) rweait: "pile on" the naysayers when they pop-up?
(12:53:38 PM) Eugene: apmon: THat's what I'm talking about. We don't have it.
(12:54:15 PM) chrisfl_: If the Working Group takes the criticism, then is this going to help?
(12:54:18 PM) SteveC: Eugene: well the coders already have a lot in the back of their minds, it's more about time and patience with the bozos I think
(12:54:26 PM) wonderchook: chrisfl_: that might be a good idea
(12:54:27 PM) apmon: Everyone constantly sais there are loads of little things that can easily be done, but they aren't listed anywhere
(12:54:27 PM) SteveC: chrisfl_: I think so, it's a good point
(12:54:41 PM) chrisfl_: than's what I meant earlier by Empower.
(12:54:51 PM) apmon: SteveC: Well, once I am through with the OSB branch and the OpenID brnach, I'd be glad for getting more ideas of what to do
(12:54:53 PM) mkl1: I'm ok with that. SWG and the Board can take the hit
(12:54:55 PM) toffehoff: SteveC: are you actually saying that getting the mailinglist more friendly is a bigger problem than the frontpage discussion?
(12:55:22 PM) SteveC: either that or the volume has to be turned down
(12:55:33 PM) SteveC: mkl1's quote about being hostage to the list or whatever is spot on
(12:55:38 PM) SteveC: that attitude has to go away
(12:55:51 PM) toffehoff: Can we make that a subject for next weeks meeting? 
(12:56:09 PM) mkl1: yea, 5 minutes left
(12:56:20 PM) rweait: We need an AoA update.
(12:56:25 PM) mkl1: Do we have enough to go with Front Page? Can we take those actions?
(12:56:40 PM) SteveC: TomH has been a bit quiet
(12:57:14 PM) TomH: ?
(12:57:25 PM) SteveC: just wanna make sure you've aired your views
(12:57:48 PM) toffehoff: AoA:
(12:57:57 PM) mkl1: Summary: Actions: 1) we collect all the ideas 2) have us coders commit to doing some small change on the site, our choosing 3) after that, iterate our plan to a more wholesale redesign 4) SWG next week talks about lists
(12:57:59 PM) TomH: I'm happy to consider any patches - not saying I'll take them all, but I'll consuder them
(12:58:34 PM) toffehoff: AoA: call for participation on the OSMF-talk list has been put out.
(12:58:36 PM) SteveC: me waits for mkl1 to commit to writing code
(12:59:03 PM) mkl1: sure ... i have a couple things i want to do, which aren't on front page, but related
(12:59:11 PM) toffehoff: AoA: call for participation and a lawyer on legal-talk has been put out.
(12:59:13 PM) ***SteveC commits in mkl1's honor
(12:59:15 PM) mkl1: writing code is my refuge from the cruel world, lately
(12:59:43 PM) mkl1: pls continue toffehoff
(12:59:54 PM) ***Firefishy reminds all there is a OSM Hack weekend in May.
(01:00:35 PM) rweait: Firefishy nice.
(01:00:37 PM) toffehoff: AoA: We hope we could have a first draft we could discuss during SotM-eu and will have a final version during AGM @ SotM Denver
(01:00:38 PM) apmon: Firefishy: I will actually by in London on the morning of the 21st of May.
(01:00:43 PM) rweait: Londont, Ontario, right?
(01:01:09 PM) apmon: So I might pop by and say Hi, but my flight is out of Heathrow in the afternoon, so can't stay long
(01:01:28 PM) Firefishy: Andy Allan offered some good 'getting started' tutorial sessions @ the last Hack day.
(01:01:52 PM) toffehoff: Firefishy: yes he did.
(01:01:54 PM) SteveC: were they recorded?
(01:02:10 PM) Firefishy: Not as far as I know.
(01:02:14 PM) ***Firefishy needs to be off.
(01:02:17 PM) mkl1: we're at the hour
(01:02:26 PM) mkl1: toffehoff ... any action needed by SWG?
(01:04:40 PM) mkl1: hello?
(01:04:47 PM) rweait: still here.
(01:04:54 PM) rweait: toffehoff?
(01:04:59 PM) mkl1: toffehoff ... is that all on AoA?
(01:05:31 PM) rweait: ping -b ?
(01:06:14 PM) rweait: I'm going to say we're having network trouble 
(01:06:15 PM) mkl1: perhaps that's all ... we gotta close
(01:06:19 PM) mkl1: seems liek
(01:06:30 PM) rweait: SO noted.  We'll finsih up by email if needed. 
(01:06:34 PM) rweait: Cheers
(01:06:42 PM) mkl1: thanks rweait!
(01:06:46 PM) rweait: *** Logging ended ***