- 1 Participants
- 2 Administrative
- 3 Microgrants selection
- 4 Recent corporate member application [requested by Tobias]
- 5 Local Chapter agreement update
- 6 Responses to RFC on iD governance
- 7 Status of attribution guideline [requested by Tobias]
- 8 Any other business
- 9 Next meeting
- Allan Mustard (chairing)
- Paul Norman
- Rory McCann
- Guillaume Rischard (joined ~ 21' after start)
- Joost Schouppe
- Tobias Knerr
- Mikel Maron (joined ~ 19' after start)
(not open to observers)
- Christopher Beddow (Microgrants Commitee) participated in part of the discussion on Microgrant selection.
On accountability for people who will receive funds directly
Some of the applicants want to pay a considerable part of the grant sum to unnamed recipients. The board had asked the Microgrants committee to share information on these beneficiaries and their previous volunteer activity, as defined by the Microgrants Policy framework.
- 13 shortlisted applicants have been contacted by the Microgrants committee and were requested to provide: names, OSM usernames and 1-3 sentences about volunteer background of people who will receive stipends/funding.
- Solo developers were asked for confirmation.
- Committee to provide summary to board.
- Committee did not ask for information about workshop participants who might get prizes, as these might be new mappers.
- Two observers were present at the last meeting and Craig Allen wrote and shared a report of that meeting.
Accountability of purchased equipment was briefly mentioned.
Chris Beddow left.
Mikel joined ~ 9' after start
Question about board member views on amount of money requested by a specific Microgrants project proposal .
- Asking for three 360o cameras.
On whether the board is ok with accepting the 13 applications proposed by the Microgrants Committee instead of 10
The Microgrants committee had emailed the board that they would like to accept 13 proposals, instead of 10. The total amount of the proposals is below the maximum limit of EUR 50,000.
- No decision yet.
- Straw poll on whether board members are ok going above the upper limit of 10 applications, if all other factors are ok. # In favour: Mikel, Joost, Rory, Tobias. Paul: so and so. Allan: no indication.
- Board members to look into the particular application, after question from one of the members regarding amount requested.
- Joost to post on osmf-talk about Craig Allan's observer report.
Recent corporate member application [requested by Tobias]
The Licensing Working Group (LWG) was asked if they wanted something to be relayed to the company at the same time as the board would send the information about how to become a Corporate Member.
- The LWG has a meeting soon, where the topic might be discussed.
- Contact company and ask if they would change the name of the product.
- Give time to LWG to discuss.
- Acknowledge receipt of application if we don't hear from LWG soon.
- If LWG does not respond soon, we will send an email acknowledging receipt of Corporate Membership application.
Local Chapter agreement update
- Rory made changes to draft and emailed Maggie Cawley (OSM US) the latest version.
- After receiving the ok, plan to ask for feedback from membership and on other communication channels.
- OSM US already has sent some documents required for the LC application process.
Action item: Rory to ping Maggie.
Responses to RFC on iD governance
Guillaume joined ~ 21' after start.
Have a few trusted people who would be in effect the adjudication panel and who would be able to tap expertise from anywhere in the community.
On request for comments and feedback
- Quincy is on board.
- Spectrum of opinions.
- Deliberate outreach.
- No-one in the messages has come-up with a concept of how it would work.
- Membership might wait for the board before getting into specifics.
- Some commenters seem to have not read the document.
Points mentioned during discussion
- There are community members in high profile projects, as iD, with experience with people wanting things tagged in certain way: Potlatch, OSM-Carto (default style), JOSM.
- Comment that Allan might be too close to developers themselves. Some criticism for the developers was justified and not always properly handled by iD team, especially on controversial choices.
- There needs to be legitimacy for any controversial decisions that the board takes.
Different views on appeal team's capabilities
- The default action would only be to decide whether something is established or if there is no consensus. In the later case, the feature would be considered not matured yet to be featured on osm.org
- Concern that it might lead to paralysis.
- The appeal team can make suggestions.
- Difficult to find group competent to make those decisions. The reason why many tagging issues are unresolved is because there are no good quality options on the table yet/ we need software development or data model development.
On whether appeal team's decisions are binding
Suggestion: The developers decide whether to implement suggestions and the board has the final call.
On creating a new group or tasking the Data Working Group (DWG)
- Different envisioned operation of appeal team vs DWG in terms of joining process, meetings, confidentiality. DWG is also struggling to get more people on.
- Individuals of DWG might be good candidates to join a new group.
- Both positions can be included in the proposal.
- Two board members have asked DWG members if they would be interested and got different feedback.
Guillaume to ask again DWG informally.
Next steps, if iD software governance successful
- Extend software governance to other software products that want to opt in.
- Long term: Allan likes Andy Allan's suggestion of putting canonical/agreed-to tags on a place other than the OSM wiki.
- Have plans for first appeal (there is a backlog of open questions).
- Allan to come up with a concept, circulate it to the board for feedback and possible updates and then either the board votes to adopt it or circulate it more widely for comments.
- Paul to send to Allan the names of people to contact from Potlatch, osm-carto, JOSM.
Status of attribution guideline [requested by Tobias]
Points mentioned during discussion
- Text updated by Guillaume and Paul, clearer to read.
- Good remarks and suggestions by Tobias.
- LWG has a meeting soon, Guillaume will provide the current draft to them and ask for feedback.
- Meeting scheduled with Corporate Members representatives on the Advisory Board (2020-06-22, minutes to be added here).
- Plan: Ask for feedback on current draft.
- If LWG feedback has not been supplied, the draft won't be shared with public or specific group. A status update can be provided.
Any other business
Cesium OSM buildings
- Rory to draft a reply to Michael's email and circulate it to the board.
Public board meeting on 25th of June 2020, 17:00 London time.