Difference between revisions of "Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-10-21"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|Line 50:||Line 50:|
Also attending: Richard Weait (rweait)
== Agenda ==
== Agenda ==
Latest revision as of 16:27, 21 October 2011
- Defineing strategic
- Approved previous minutes
- Discussed some of the more operational items on the wiki, will leave for now in case they can be translated into more strategic actions.
- Moving the meeting to 16:00 UTC
- Continue: Come up with concrete suggestions with how to expand this discussion and strategic planning process to the whole OSMF. Perhaps through the a recommendation to the management team
- wonderchook volunteered to do HOT's list
Next weeks agenda
- As Actions.
Next meeting 4th Novemeber 16.00 UTC -
Firefishy joined the chat room. [14:57] wonderchook joined the chat room. [15:00] fake_mackerski__ joined the chat room. [15:02] fake_mackerski__ is now known as fake_mackerski. [15:04] fake_mackerski: Folks, do I have it right that there is a meeting in 55min? [15:05] Eugene_h joined the chat room. [15:06] Eugene left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) [15:06] TomH: fake_mackerski: I thought it was five minutes ago TBH [15:06] wonderchook: I thought it was now [15:06] wonderchook: according to my alarm [15:06] fake_mackerski: 1600 GMT is what's down, I thought... [15:07] fake_mackerski: And we have DST, so that's not until next hour if I'm right [15:08] fake_mackerski: Either way, I should be there in an hour, but my Internets are mobile and I might get bitten by some tunnels [15:09] stevenfeldman joined the chat room. [15:09] TomH: well last one was 1500 GMT and I wasn't aware of us agreeing to change the time [15:09] TomH: nothing in the meeting notes either [15:09] fake_mackerski: Hmm, point [15:09] stevenfeldman: are we in a meeting or am I an hour late? [15:10] TomH: stevenfeldman: just debating if you're an hour early [15:10] fake_mackerski: I know RichardF pre-excused himself for today [15:10] chrisfl_: I was expecting the meeting now…. [15:11] stevenfeldman: my calendar says 4.00 gmt but I am forever confused about the timing of these meetings [15:12] fake_mackerski: This page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group#Communication agrees with stevenfeldman's calendar [15:12] fake_mackerski: Though of course we can fiddle it at will [15:12] stevenfeldman: is the wiki silently connecting to my calendar if you change it? [15:12] fake_mackerski: Right now suits me better, since I'll have to leave this train at 18:30 CEST [15:13] fake_mackerski: That would be a matter for your calendar, I reckon [15:13] fake_mackerski: Could be a nifty product [15:14] stevenfeldman: any nifty osm conversations going on today? [15:16] wonderchook: I can do now, and probably can do in a hour but will be on a bus for part of the time [15:16] wonderchook: the event I'm at shames you if you are on your laptop at all during certain times:) [15:17] stevenfeldman: Surely no one would shame a wonderchook? [15:18] fake_mackerski: Reasons to proceed now: Because we're here now [15:18] fake_mackerski: Reasons to wait: Others may come along in good faith at the "appointed" time [15:18] fake_mackerski: Show of hands? [15:18] stevenfeldman: +1 for now [15:19] TomH: +1 [15:19] wonderchook: +1 [15:19] chrisfl_: +1 [15:19] fake_mackerski: Looks like a consensus [15:20] stevenfeldman: are we in meeting then? [15:20] fake_mackerski: By anarchic consent it would seem so [15:20] fake_mackerski: The assumption was that Mikel would chair this one. [15:20] fake_mackerski: Who wants it? [15:21] wonderchook: well Mikel has been back online since his wedding I don't think [15:21] wonderchook: I mean "hasn't [15:21] fake_mackerski: Shall I chair? [15:21] fake_mackerski: And is anybody in a position to log? [15:22] fake_mackerski: I don't mind posting the log, but I don't trust this machine to keep one [15:23] Eugene_h: I'll log in case your machine fails [15:23] chrisfl_: I can log [15:31] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) [15:33] padded_mackerski joined the chat room. [15:34] • padded_mackerski forgot that border crossings are bad for signal [15:34] padded_mackerski: So whoever stepped in please keep going [15:34] wonderchook: well, nobody stepped in [15:34] wonderchook: so [15:38] fake_mackerski joined the chat room. [15:39] padded_mackerski: Ok, fair enough [15:39] padded_mackerski: There was exactly one homework from last meeting [15:39] padded_mackerski: I myself waited until today to do any of it, and there's still more needs doing [15:39] padded_mackerski: It was based on RichardF's suggestion to keep a list of suggestions made by the community, good or bad [15:39] padded_mackerski: If anyone on a real computer can post a link to the wiki page that would be nice [15:39] • fake_mackerski gets keyboard back - this is the page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Suggestion_review#Infastructure [15:39] padded_mackerski: Right now there's some content on that page [15:39] padded_mackerski: Does anybody have some that's not yet entered? [15:40] stevenfeldman: I started entering content by trawling through talk-us. Still got more to do though [15:40] TomH: sorry, did I miss the SWG taking over operational decisions from OWG? [15:40] fake_mackerski: I have more to do too. [15:40] fake_mackerski: TomH: What decisions? [15:40] TomH: Use >1 database for performance [15:41] TomH: Use >1 database for redundancy and resilience [15:41] fake_mackerski: Last meeting we chose to make a list of suggestions people had made in the past [15:41] fake_mackerski: Without regard to whether they were good [15:41] TomH: well I believe I once suggested free ponies for all... [15:41] fake_mackerski: I added those elements to the list - I don't anticipate them being tackled by SWG [15:42] fake_mackerski: The list will end up shorter [15:42] stevenfeldman: afaik these are just a list of suggestions as to waht osmf should be doing [15:43] fake_mackerski: Either way, it seems clear that we are some way from having a list that can yield decisions [15:44] fake_mackerski: So an action that needs to be noted is "keep filling the list" [15:44] wonderchook: well, are there other lists that need to be gone through [15:44] wonderchook: I can do HOT's list [15:44] fake_mackerski: Ideal [15:44] fake_mackerski: Incidentally, in the excitement, I never covered the minutes from last meeting [15:45] fake_mackerski: Are we happy with them? [15:46] stevenfeldman: I wasn't at last meeting so cant comment [15:47] Eugene_h: the minutes are OK [15:47] fake_mackerski: Anybody who was? [15:47] fake_mackerski: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-10-07 [15:47] chrisfl_: all I can see is the log? [15:48] fake_mackerski: chrisfl_: Yes, that's all that's recorded... [15:49] fake_mackerski: With one single action, to build the list [15:49] fake_mackerski: That action will be carried forward this time [15:50] Eugene_h: Regarding last meeting's task - I found difficult to do it the way we meant to do it and as I see from wiki, you had some problems too [15:50] Eugene_h: I mean that instead of really strategic ideas we still shift to operational because "Routing engine on main website" is really close to forbidden "OSM should rewrite the editor in HTML5" [15:51] wonderchook: does it make more sense to try to take the ideas and make them more strategic or leave them raw as they are? [15:51] Eugene_h: The problem is that I personally failed to find any strategic ideas, all I could were technical/operational [15:52] stevenfeldman: I thought the idea was to trawl for past suggestions about what strategic stuff osmf should be doing so I have been ignoring anything that seemed tech or operational [15:52] wonderchook: are people really going to give a bunch of flatly strategic ideas? Or say things at are concrete, but maybe there is a greater strategy behind them? [15:53] wonderchook: for example in the "Use >1 database for redundancy and resilience" comments is there a way to word that so it is more about strategy and less about the OWG? [15:53] stevenfeldman: If you have the time and patiene to trawl through the lists I think you can discern some patterns that might be phrased as strategic issues [15:55] stevenfeldman: If we said "should osmf be investing to ensure a high degree of availability for our infrastructure and if so to what extent?" that might be considered strategic [15:55] Eugene_h: I believe that we should look at tech ideas and then ask ourselves why they should be implemented. This can (probably) help create some strategic vision out of them. [15:57] wonderchook: I suppose this is similar to discussions on the OSMF list along the lines of "OSMF should hire someone to do X" and figure out really waht is behind this [15:57] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) [15:58] Eugene_h: yes, something like this [15:58] padded_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) [15:58] Eugene_h: In theory we should have strategy and then implement it with operations. In reality we don't have neither strategy nor any its mentions somewhere so we can do only this way. [15:59] wonderchook: so I think lets take this approach between now and the next meeting to work on the list? [16:00] Eugene_h: +1 from me [16:00] stevenfeldman: Perhaps the trawl through the lists will help us to get a feeling for what people are concerned about (in a strategic sense) as opposed to us just coming up with strategy in isolation and then getting flamed by one and all [16:00] chrisfl_: that was the plan [16:00] Eugene_h: we won't avoid flames anyway [16:01] chrisfl_: The flames come when we categorise and remove things [16:01] stevenfeldman: chrisfl_ maybe we should be the Asbsetos Coated Working Group [16:03] wonderchook: well we'd just then get further flamed for causing cancer? [16:04] wonderchook: anyway, is there anything else we need to talk about other than the making of the list? [16:04] fake_mackerski joined the chat room. [16:04] padded_mackerski joined the chat room. [16:05] fake_mackerski: Anybody still here? [16:05] chrisfl_: yes [16:05] stevenfeldman: me. I'm back into talk-us [16:05] fake_mackerski: I _may_ have a solid connection now [16:05] wonderchook: so fake_mackerski we were talking about trying to take strategic ideas from the more concrete ones on the lists [16:05] chrisfl_: I think we're just coming towards a close…. [16:06] wonderchook: so we have more themes than specific "do this" [16:06] Firefishy left the chat room. [16:06] fake_mackerski: As I vanished, we were OK with the minutes [16:06] fake_mackerski: I'll catch up on that from the log rather than have people repeat themselves [16:06] fake_mackerski: Yup [16:07] fake_mackerski: Already the wiki headings are a mixture of where the ideas were voiced and what kind of idea they are [16:07] fake_mackerski: The latter may prove more useful [16:08] stevenfeldman: are we wrapping up now? I need to go. Will try to complete my trawl by next meeting (only 20 months left) [16:08] fake_mackerski: I think that's wise - this train arrives in 5 minutes anyway [16:08] wonderchook: yeah, I think we were ready to wrapup [16:08] fake_mackerski: Any last issues before close? [16:08] stevenfeldman: bye everyone, in a fortnight but at what time? [16:08] wonderchook: none for me! [16:08] chrisfl_: Stick to 3pm UTC or move with the clocks? [16:09] chrisfl_: fake_mackerski: log so far: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-10-21 [16:09] wonderchook left the chat room. (Quit: wonderchook) [16:10] stevenfeldman: chisfl_ either works a s long as we all know when we are meant to be meeting [16:11] phoney_mackerski joined the chat room. [16:11] chrisfl_: indeed! Shall we move to 16UTC and keep the meeting at the same "time"? I [16:11] stevenfeldman: +1 for that [16:11] Eugene_h: I agree. [16:12] chrisfl_: any objections? [16:12] phoney_mackerski: chrisfl_: Sure [16:12] phoney_mackerski: No wiki fiddling required [16:12] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [16:12] phoney_mackerski left the chat room. (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [16:12] Eugene_h: chrisfl_: why in log I am listed as absent? I'm here [16:13] chrisfl_: I've not done that bit yet… Just cut and pasted from a previous meeting [16:13] phoney_mackerski joined the chat room. [16:13] Eugene_h: Ah.. OK [16:14] chrisfl_: Cool next meeting 4th Novemeber 16.00 UTC - I'll try sending out a google calendar invite with that time in, if that's useful? [16:15] stevenfeldman: Very useful chrisfl_ thx [16:18] chrisfl_: for attendance purposes are rweait and blackadder watching?