Difference between revisions of "Board/Minutes/2016-02-09"

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
m (date correction)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<font color="red">DRAFT AGENDA</font><br/>
 
<font color="red">DRAFT AGENDA</font><br/>
Location: Mumble, 2016-02-16 1500 London time
+
Location: Mumble, 2016-02-09 1500 London time
   
 
==Participants==
 
==Participants==

Revision as of 22:25, 8 February 2016

DRAFT AGENDA
Location: Mumble, 2016-02-09 1500 London time

Participants

Board members

Guests

Not Present

Administrative

Previous minutes

Board/Minutes/2016-01-08

Circular Resolutions

2016/02: Buy sotm.org domain

Accepted 2016-01-15 with ultimately 6 votes in favour.

The domain sotm.org is for sale from a domain vendor for USD 288. Grant suggested to me on IRC that he thought this is a bargain and that we should get it for State of the Map, if only to ensure that nobody puts something else there. Normally this is something that OWG could decide for themselves but since no budget has been set up yet, they preferred to ask.

2016/03: Grant £5k early budget to LWG

Accepted 2016-01-18 with ultimately 5 votes in favour.

I propose that we give LWG the green light to spend up to £5k on the things that are of immediate concern (or at least set in motion the ordering of services that will lead to that spending) , and tell them that the full budget has yet to be set.

2016/04: Redact name of PeterDRS from publications

Accepted 2016-01-29 with ultimately 7 votes in favour.

The person using the PeterDRS nickname has affirmed that he wants stop participating in OSM, and has requested that his real name be removed from OSMF publications.

Under the assumption that the person, whose real name is known to OSMF, will in the future refrain from

(a) making edits in OSM

(b) writing OSM notes, comments, mailing list or forum entries (including anonymous or pseudonymous ones) or using other forms of communication provided by the project

(c) contacting OSM project members to comment on their work in OSM, intimidate them, or threaten or initiate legal proceedings against them about in OSM,

(d) attending meetings of OSM project members,

(e) claiming to be an OSM member when communicating with other parties

OSM Foundation will, as a gesture of goodwill and without acknowledging any legal obligation, remove the real name of this person from its online publications (Wiki, Forum) and recommend that third parties not directly under the control of OSMF (i.e. the Dresden mailing list) do the same.

The name will be replaced by the alias “PeterDRS”, and a note will be applied explaining that the real name has been removed because the user in question has permanently left the project

2016/05: In-person board meeting

Rejected 2016-01-29 with ultimately 3 votes in favour, 3 votes against, and 1 abstention.

Let’s see where we stand on doing this, and then decide the when and where if appropriate.

Administrative reminder of circular resolutions

Previous action items

2015-06-15: Martijn to follow up on status of sending email to those who signed up at SOTM US
2015-08-22: Frederik to resend admin assistant docs to board
2015-12-12: Kate to start page on board wiki on what we would like to accomplish at a potential F2F
2015-12-12: Peter to write a blog article related to new board stuff
2015-12-12: Martijn to organize trial experiment with Github
2016-01-08: Paul to forward some disused email addresses to board@
2016-01-08: Paul to take on setting up membership WG
2016-01-08: Frederik to ask all WGs for budgets
2016-01-08: Frederik to ask Simon for details on immediate LWG budget needs
2016-01-08: Paul to ask all WGs to make sure their work plans are up to date

GitHub

Swiss local chapter

Swiss OpenStreetMap Association has applied to become a local chapter.

Info at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Applications/Switzerland

This is not a sub-group of a larger organization, and the form of incorporation does not have a direct UK equivalent.

Both the OSMF member and Swiss community consultation attracted some support and no negative comments, but no major feedback.

Corporate membership program

2016 budget

Collective DB guideline feedback

LWG has asked the board for preliminary feedback on the proposed collective DB guideline. They are not asking for approval yet.

The following wording was suggested:

Board thanks LWG for sharing their draft of the collective DB database and sees no issues that would preclude board from approving it further down the line. It might be useful to balance out the example section by adding an example that illustrates an use case where there's clearly no collective database.

F2F

Next meeting

Meeting End