Difference between revisions of "Full logs"
(Created page with "Note: some typos corrected 20:05:16 <simonpoole_> #startmeeting 20:05:16 <local-meetbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 20:05:16 2013 UTC. The chair is simonpoole_. Information...")
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
==LCWG Meeting 2013-11-27==
Note: some typos corrected
Note: some typos corrected
Latest revision as of 12:05, 28 November 2013
LCWG Meeting 2013-11-27
Note: some typos corrected
20:05:16 <simonpoole_> #startmeeting
20:05:16 <local-meetbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 20:05:16 2013 UTC. The chair is simonpoole_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:05:16 <local-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
20:06:18 <simonpoole_> welcome everybody to the, I believe, third LCWG meetign this year
20:06:49 <simonpoole_> #topic minutes of the last meeting
20:07:03 <gerrardg> thanks
20:07:11 <hbogner> sorry i didn't make it last time, was on the road at that time
20:07:26 <simonpoole_> we had a phone meeting in September the minutes are here
20:07:55 <simonpoole_> anybody any objections?
20:08:06 <gerrardg> nope
20:08:17 <jgrocha> nope
20:08:24 <hbogner> nope
20:08:25 <simonpoole_> I believe only packi and myself were actually present
20:08:29 <gerrardg> :D
20:08:44 <simonpoole_> so I assumed they are accepted
20:09:13 <hbogner> #agreed
20:09:15 <simonpoole_> #accepted minutes of the LCWG meeting on September the 20th 2013
20:09:46 <simonpoole_> #agreed minutes of the LCWG meeting on September the 20th 2013
20:09:59 <simonpoole_> ok next topic todays agenda
20:10:10 <simonpoole_> #topic agenda
20:10:32 <simonpoole_> meetbot seems to be ignoring me a bit ...
20:10:43 <simonpoole_> I have three items
20:11:02 <simonpoole_> - draft agreement ... any further input?
20:11:12 <simonpoole_> - chair of the LCWG
20:11:17 <simonpoole_> - AoB
20:11:33 <simonpoole_> and other items that you want to discuss?
20:11:41 <hbogner> AoB is what?
20:11:51 <simonpoole_> any other business
20:11:55 <simonpoole_> (sorry)
20:11:57 <hbogner> aha, got it
20:12:52 <hbogner> i have some input on AoB and will make it when we get to it
20:13:22 <hbogner> so i agree on agenda
20:13:27 <simonpoole_> ook .. thens lets move to the agreement
20:13:48 <jgrocha> I'm very comfortable with the agreement. Nice work.
20:13:49 <simonpoole_> #topic draft local chapter agreement
20:13:59 <simonpoole_> Here's the current draft https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Agreement
20:14:22 <alexbarth> I updated the talk page with my feedback https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/Local_Chapters/Agreement
20:14:38 <alexbarth> it was also prolly me who screwed up the formatting
20:14:43 <simonpoole_> as discussed at the last meeting I made a number of changes and have circulated it in the board too
20:16:12 <jaakl> I have just one concern. There was a discussion about translations of bylaws and reports. We do "written activity and financial report" in local language for local authorities. It is a 10-page document pain which takes few months to be finalized. I assume board does not need this to be translated, just a 1-page executive summary to see what's up?
20:16:22 <packi> I'm not sure where we've finished off on the 'certified translation' issue, but I think that could still be a hurdle for some chapters
20:16:24 <alexbarth> I essentially agree w/ all comments made on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/Local_Chapters/Agreement as of right now and I wonder which ones we should discuss here.
20:16:49 <simonpoole_> just to give some context ....
20:17:32 <simonpoole_> the original document was based on the wikimedia agreement ... and as such was very top heavy to start with and that still shows a bit
20:17:50 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: right, that's what i was thinking
20:17:51 <alexbarth> yeah i don't think there should be a certified translation, getting a translation is easy these days and it shouldn't be a requirement to found a local chapter.
20:17:53 <hbogner> i'm stuck with "7. By-laws" we dont have any because we are stil not formal
20:18:19 <simonpoole_> there are probably three areas of concern:
20:19:32 <simonpoole_> - the cert. translation: my view is that it doesn't really help, given that it will always be in the context of local legislation which we typically wont really know enough about ...
20:20:13 <gerrardg> @simonpoole_ how would you like us to raise concerns with the doc? discuss here?
20:20:13 <local-meetbot> gerrardg: Error: "simonpoole_" is not a valid command.
20:20:25 <simonpoole_> in the case of wikimedia this led to very long articles in the case of their Swiss chapter, were they tried to put everything which was in the law in to the articles
20:21:01 <simonpoole_> gerrardg best discuss here, because I want to move the document forward asap
20:21:11 <gerrardg> ok I have 3 small points
20:21:42 <gerrardg> branding: I would prefer local chapters to be recognisable as part of the osm brand
20:21:56 <simonpoole_> so IMHO instead of the cert. translations something along the lines of this http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Incorporation would be enough
20:21:56 <gerrardg> and I think we could be more descriptive about how a logo should look
20:22:59 <gerrardg> so clause 4.3 should be more specific in saying: This is how how are allowed to customize
20:23:00 <simonpoole_> the 2nd concern is likely to be with trademarks and domainnames aka intellectual property
20:23:32 <jaakl> translations - I now read the discussions in wiki and it is fine for me.
20:24:28 <gerrardg> I saw no mention of ownership of funds for when a local chapter seize to exist. that should ideally come back to the main organization
20:24:48 <alexbarth> gerrardg: yeah, disagree on prescribing logo looks, the current osm logo needs work and we've got a history in OSM in being creative w/ logo https://www.google.com/search?q=openstreetmap+logo
20:24:57 <simonpoole_> that is probably too complcated in an intl. environment to nail down
20:25:07 <hbogner> translations, i'm for the option to keep it simple, it costs to get certified translation
20:25:10 <alexbarth> next thing you know refreshing the logo involves rewriting chapter agreements
20:25:32 <gerrardg> only if you refer to the logo as specifically as we currently do
20:25:32 <jgrocha> -1 on prescribing logo looks
20:26:20 <simonpoole_> logo: a) the horse bolted years ago b) there are alone in the UK roughly 1000 magnifying glass logos so it is not a very strong mark in any case
20:26:21 <gerrardg> I am only considering being prescriptive to ensure consistant branding
20:26:58 <jaakl> The last MoM mentions "issue was related to the flow of funds". Can anyone comment what the issue is there? My general understanding is that there is no generally flow of funds. By default each chapter has own budget and funding sources, no money from foundation, or back to that. However, this should be mentioned in Articles also. Currently it is not clear whether the rights to use logo etc will got to local chapters for free, or can OSMF create
20:27:16 <simonpoole_> medium term I could imagine something happening ... but not as long the CWG is one person
20:28:38 <simonpoole_> jaakl currently there is no change to that ... I don't think it is really necessary to state that explicitly
20:29:29 <gerrardg> there has to be clarity though about what happens to unused funds if a local chapter disolves. I am still a counter signatury of funds of a local linux association that has been building up interest over the last 10 years sitting unsused
20:30:09 <simonpoole_> anyway quickly back to the issue of certified translations, everybody fine simply to require the original articles plus a document in English explaining the incorporation?
20:30:39 <hbogner> original + english explanation should be enough
20:30:50 <gerrardg> yip
20:30:58 <packi> yes
20:31:03 <simonpoole_> gerrardg well normally non profits move their funds to a similar organisation on dissolution (for example that is what the OSMF articles state)
20:31:23 <simonpoole_> alexbarth?
20:31:31 <gerrardg> ok
20:31:55 <alexbarth> +1: "everybody fine simply to require the original articles plus a document in English explaining the incorporation?"
20:32:01 <simonpoole_> ok
20:32:35 <simonpoole_> #agreed �01original articles plus a document in English explaining the incorporation��01 instead of certified translation
20:33:06 <hbogner> we just disolved one ngo and had to name an "likvidator" in charge of all funds and material gods, which was needed, but we had our internal agreement that all our funds were to go to another ngo which we were all moving to
20:34:11 <simonpoole_> a suggestion wrt to 4.3 : I think we can just remove that and point to 4.4
20:34:47 <hbogner> agree
20:34:54 <packi> +1
20:35:07 <simonpoole_> and for 4.2 I will clarify (Roland had an objection there) that this is only for activities as a OSM chapter 1) already allows a sub-group of a larger org to be a chapter
20:35:44 <gerrardg> I support that, makes it simpler
20:35:54 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: what are the visual identity guidelines and intellectual property policies as of today?
20:36:34 <simonpoole_> none that I know of ... as I said the CWG is one guy ....
20:36:42 <gerrardg> CWG?
20:36:43 <hbogner> so if we become chapter of another we use our own logo when we do osm stuff
20:37:04 <packi> gerrardg: communications working group
20:37:04 <simonpoole_> which very OT, is silightly funny since you would expect tons of people to be interested in helping
20:37:18 <simonpoole_> hbogner yes that is the general idea
20:37:28 <hbogner> great :D
20:38:56 <alexbarth> yeah so i think we should just leave this 4.3 / 4.4 out as i have no foundation to base a decision on. I don't think it's good to agree to adhere to something that doesn't exist yet
20:38:59 <simonpoole_> there is a general concern that I have that there may be issues with the French and Germand orgs because of domain names they own, but I can't see any way around haveing a clause that such registrations should fall back to the OSMF
20:39:26 <simonpoole_> alexbarth well teh text caters exactly for that :-)
20:40:11 <alexbarth> well, it's saying that the chapter agrees to any future policies but i don't know how to agree to that based on the fact that i don't know what the future policies are :)
20:40:29 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: this poses the general question of how to handle adjustments to the agreement
20:40:57 <alexbarth> the 1 year duration clause gives you some leeway here
20:40:58 <simonpoole_> well in general they will need a new agreement or admendment of such
20:41:35 <alexbarth> so if you get IP and design policies in place, you can add those to the agreement and renegotiate
20:41:51 <simonpoole_> but I think changing a font in our CD or so shouldn't amount to such a big issue and simply should be adopted when convenient
20:42:13 <alexbarth> right
20:43:07 <simonpoole_> the document doesn't actualy refer to a general IP policy
20:43:08 <packi> I think automatic adoption of policies isn't' that big of an issue as long as the policies themselves are announced early and developed by a open comitee
20:43:42 <simonpoole_> mainly because it is completely uncelar if there is any support for such (given that there is oppostiion)
20:44:20 <simonpoole_> ok everybody ok with dropping 4.3
20:44:24 <simonpoole_> ?
20:44:49 <gerrardg> Ok with dropping 4.3
20:45:29 <packi> yes
20:45:34 <hbogner> ok
20:45:45 <alexbarth> ok
20:46:07 <simonpoole_> #agreed drop 4.3
20:46:32 <simonpoole_> #action simonpoole come up with better wording for 4.4
20:46:48 <simonpoole_> ok alexbarth you had an issue with 8
20:47:06 <simonpoole_> don't you have some kind of report you present to your members?
20:48:41 <simonpoole_> I don't think we would expect anything else than what you would produce in any case
20:49:43 <simonpoole_> ?
20:49:49 <gerrardg> should we more descriptive about the type of financial report mentioned in 8? ie confirm to some sort of international accounting standard?
20:50:02 <gerrardg> or would that be overkill
20:50:04 <gerrardg> ?
20:50:13 <simonpoole_> I don't think most chapters could remotely afford that
20:50:46 <simonpoole_> I'm assuming most don't/won't have audited financials
20:51:06 <hbogner> i need to se how to get a financial report for a chapter of a larger ngo
20:51:09 <packi> additionally if there is no financial relationship with the OSMF there is no reason to deliver a financial report to the OSMF
20:51:09 <gerrardg> ok
20:51:34 <gerrardg> there has to be a level of accountancy
20:51:39 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: I'm going for minimal bureaucracy, so i'd love to hear why we need reporting. I. e. i'd like to drive this by needs not by what's easy to do.
20:51:40 <gerrardg> if they are using the branding
20:51:42 <simonpoole_> IMHO what we really need to know if is the chapter still working as a chapter and does it still have members
20:52:06 <gerrardg> then I think it is only fair that they are responsible with money they collect and spend in the name of OSM
20:52:25 <jgrocha> the report can be a short presentation at SOTM
20:52:28 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: best handle for that are the expiring contracts
20:52:44 <jgrocha> but not a formal report
20:52:46 <alexbarth> simonpoole_: sloppily led chapters will have members but wont send you a report
20:52:51 <simonpoole_> well sure you can imagine a rogue chapter collection money for OSM and spending it on vacations, but then they would cook the books anyway
20:54:35 <gerrardg> it is a legal entity in the relevant country and we have this statements then we should be able to resort to the courts for if problems were to occur
20:54:49 <simonpoole_> ok I will discuss this with the rest of the board, but I suspect that some kind of regular feedback wont go away
20:55:56 <simonpoole_> ok ... other items to discuss wrt the agreement? the next step would be one more iteration here and then send it to a lawyer for a sanity check
20:55:57 <hbogner> i'm ok with feedback, what was income, what was spent, what is left, plain nad simple, were you thinking about something like that
20:56:44 <hbogner> if we get to that, hope so :D
20:57:02 <simonpoole_> ok no further comments at this stage....
20:57:15 <simonpoole_> then #topic chair person
20:57:15 <gerrardg> nope
20:57:22 <simonpoole_> #topic chair person
20:57:46 <alexbarth> guys i'll have to run
20:57:59 <simonpoole_> bye alexbarth
20:57:59 <alexbarth> I'm for poole for chair
20:58:06 <hbogner> bye alexbarth
20:58:07 <alexbarth> thanks for setting this up
20:58:15 <alexbarth> hi5 to local chapters everywhere
20:58:59 <simonpoole_> in the March meeting we elected a chair who subsequently vanished
20:59:16 <gerrardg> not great
20:59:31 <hbogner> i even forgot who it was
20:59:34 <jgrocha> ups....
20:59:47 <simonpoole_> the requirement is to regularly call a meeting and moderate it, and represent the LCWG in the mangement team
20:59:55 <jgrocha> is so bad to be chair???
21:00:05 <gerrardg> regulary as in monthly?
21:00:06 <simonpoole_> I don't think so
21:00:23 <simonpoole_> right now probably monthly later on it depends
21:00:44 <gerrardg> I could manage that
21:00:46 <simonpoole_> it is really not a big deal, the MT meeting are monthly too
21:01:09 <hbogner> hot wg also
21:01:59 <hbogner> wrong, they have weekly
21:02:00 <simonpoole_> I personaly just shouldn't do it because a) there is a slight conflict of interest between being the repressentative of the OSMF and representing the local chapters and further b) it messes up the management team
21:02:17 <simonpoole_> gerrardg would you be available?
21:02:32 <jgrocha> I think you should serve as chair until the end of this process. Afterwards we will do elections.
21:02:34 <gerrardg> yes, I will make myself available
21:02:48 <jgrocha> better
21:03:00 <simonpoole_> I'm naturally availably as help for gerrardg
21:03:05 <simonpoole_> available
21:03:12 <gerrardg> but happy to wait if people feel opposed to it now
21:03:30 <simonpoole_> I would rather have this done asap
21:03:33 <hbogner> no objections
21:03:46 <jgrocha> no objection
21:03:58 <simonpoole_> so I would propose gerrardg as chait of the lcwg, could we have a show of "hands"
21:04:03 <simonpoole_> yes from me
21:04:12 <packi> yes
21:04:14 <jgrocha> yes
21:04:27 <hbogner> yes
21:04:42 <simonpoole_> ok
21:04:49 <simonpoole_> then congrats gerrardg
21:04:54 <gerrardg> thanks
21:04:59 <hbogner> gerrardg, don't run away like the last one :D
21:05:04 <gerrardg> :D
21:05:05 <gerrardg> I wont
21:05:13 <simonpoole_> #agreed gerrardg elected as chair person
21:05:21 <simonpoole_> good
21:05:23 <hbogner> i forgot about lcwg because ther were no meetings, call them more often now
21:05:28 <gerrardg> for records and clarity my OSM name is Gerhardus Geldenhuis
21:05:29 <jgrocha> congratulations
21:05:36 <hbogner> congrats
21:05:36 <simonpoole_> ok
21:06:09 <simonpoole_> so ... then lets move to AoB
21:06:15 <simonpoole_> #topic AoB
21:06:48 <simonpoole_> hbogner you had something?
21:07:22 <gerrardg> I have nothing to add for AoB
21:07:47 <hbogner> ok, the talks to include osm croatia team, just a bunch of people, into our local linux user group is in progres and they have no objections, we have no objections
21:08:25 <hbogner> some of them sparked osm in croatia so we have the same goal and field of work, open data
21:09:18 <hbogner> when we finish that we'll be able to be official
21:09:20 <simonpoole_> I think that would be very well possible and the agreement caters exactly for that
21:09:42 <hbogner> yes, thats how i read it, just wanted to double check 21:09:59 <simonpoole_> (the FOSSGIS case has been mentioned where we have the same situation)
21:10:04 <simonpoole_> ok
21:10:10 <simonpoole_> any more points?
21:10:39 <hbogner> and when ther was talk about intelectual propertioes, like osm domain, is it ok for them to register openstreetmap.hr or should osmf do it?
21:11:01 <hbogner> if needed, we have osm-hr.org for now
21:11:06 <simonpoole_> I'll check
21:11:34 <simonpoole_> depends on if we can actualy register in .hr without being there locally
21:12:13 <jgrocha> I think each chapter should register the domain locally
21:12:13 <hbogner> after the talk started, we got some offers for server(donation/usage) help from them, so maybe we'll move from 2003 desktop
21:13:58 <simonpoole_> jgrocha the problem is when such a chapter potentially goes rogues it could block osm activitiy in that country at least under the osm name ....
21:14:30 <simonpoole_> and where possible we just want to avoid that (rogue could involve being bought by google or nokia or the likes)
21:14:45 <jgrocha> ok...
21:14:52 <simonpoole_> naturally the incorporation form should not allow that to happen but ....
21:15:01 <simonpoole_> ok
21:15:15 <simonpoole_> anything more?
21:15:20 <hbogner> ok, when you check inform the rest of us
21:15:26 <simonpoole_> yes
21:16:00 <simonpoole_> ok then thank you all for attending, gerrardg I'll be in touch with you
21:16:06 <simonpoole_> #endmeeting