Full logs

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
Revision as of 12:05, 28 November 2013 by Simon Poole (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

20:07:27 <simonpoole_> https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/17xGA0i9m0aPlWyImamdLwuwPaTUcQ-St4UFhL4M4Pnc/edit#heading=h.852pcesq3kcr

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