CWG meeting 2012-03-05

Communication Working Group meeting which took place Monday 5th March 2012

Attendees

  • Harry Wood
  • Henk Hoff
  • Jonathan Bennett
  • Richard Fairhurst
  • Richard Weait

Topics

  • Ulf memorial
  • Management Team decision making
  • Communications TODO list
  • License change

IRC logs

21:04 harry-wood: hello
21:04 JonathanB: Evening
21:05 toffehoff: Hello all
21:05 harry-wood: I didn't miss anything then?
21:05 harry-wood: Shall we have a CWG meeting?
21:06 toffehoff: Yup
21:07 harry-wood: rweait / rweait1 here?
21:07 rweait1: ack
21:08 harry-wood: hello!
21:08 harry-wood: What shall we talk about today then?
21:08 harry-wood: Looks like the go-ahead has been given for the Ulf plan
21:08 rweait1: That is true.
21:09 rweait1: Board was happy with the plan.
21:09 rweait1: I can report that Ulf's family is happy with it as well.
21:09 harry-wood: excellent
21:09 harry-wood: what's the next step with that then?
21:09 toffehoff: Great. Thanks for all the work so far with this rweait.
21:09 rweait1: We'll make an official announcement on 03 May 2012, which would have been Ulf's 40th birthday.
21:10 rweait1: Next is to set up the paypal page to collect contributions.
21:10 JonathanB: Wow. He was almost exactly the same age as me.
21:10 rweait1: and that can be any time before the 3rd
21:11 rweait1: Perhaps a wiki page or something to collect nominations?
21:11 rweait1: or an osmf email address, I guess.
21:12 rweait1: i sppose we can have nominations sent to communication@osmfoundation.org.
21:12 rweait1: Any objection to that?
21:12 toffehoff: Do we (the CWG) want to run this?
21:13 toffehoff: (just asking)
21:13 rweait1: CWG are the only volunteers so far.
21:13 harry-wood: I think we've said we will
21:13 JonathanB: I have no objection to doing so, but equally another part of the foundation could.
21:13 rweait1: But we can hand it off to others if we wish (anf the volunteer)
21:13 rweait1: (and they volunteer)
21:14 harry-wood: do we need to devise the parameters of the competition. What are we looking for in a nominee etc
21:14 rweait1: I thought we would ask the family to help select the first awardee for may 2013.
21:14 toffehoff: We can bring it up at the management team. If they also agree on handling this with CWG, I'm fine.
21:15 harry-wood: think they already agreed actually
21:15 harry-wood: in so far as lots of people +1ed the proposal email
21:15 harry-wood: could be double-check though
21:16 toffehoff: yup via e-mail. Did see a short discussion about whether there should be a separate group....
21:16 toffehoff: Yes, let's check at next MT, to make sure.
21:16 rweait1: why on earth would you do that?
21:17 harry-wood: It'll be a case of. "We said this in the email. Hopefully everyone's ok with that right?"
21:17 rweait1: Why would mt have something to add now, other than bikeshedding, when they haven't taken any interest in the matter til now?
21:18 rweait1: This is frustrating in the extreme.
21:18 rweait1: even the August members of this group have resisted answering emails beyond +1 on this matter.
21:18 rweait1: What further needs to be decided?
21:18 rweait1: Suddenly, this needs to go to committe again?
21:18 rweait1: That is nonsense.
21:19 JonathanB: The work does all appear to have been done.
21:19 rweait1: If you want to be part of the decision, take part in the process,
21:19 rweait1: don't fly in afterwards and bikeshed.
21:19 toffehoff: It's not about doing things all over again. It's about making clear the everyone knows who is doing what.
21:20 harry-wood: yeah I don't think it needs "go to committee" Let's keep MT informed
21:20 rweait1: What are you volunteering to do then?
21:20 rweait1: Why?
21:21 rweait1: The board gave this to CWG, because nobody else stepped up/.
21:21 rweait1: NObody DID anything on this, but us.
21:21 harry-wood: well nobody but you actually
21:21 rweait1: Give ti MT, who haven't volunteered for it, and we risk it being left untended.
21:22 harry-wood: I think the MT is struggling to be relevant in quite a lot of goings on.
21:22 toffehoff: Richard, I know you put a lot of work. Which is greatly appreciated. The only thing I want to do here is to make sure that everyone is still on the same page.
21:23 rweait1: If MT wants it to support it's continued existence, that's fine. Let them ask CWG for it.
21:23 rweait1: One the same page? Who has opened the book?!
21:23 rweait1: Fine give ti to MT.
21:24 rweait1: Let's annouce that shall we?
21:24 rweait1: Where has this come from?
21:24 toffehoff: Richard, I do not want to give this to MT to run it. I want to make sure that everyone (Data, Engineering, etc) knows this is handled by CWG.
21:25 rweait1: Once upon a time, OSM celebrated the things done in the community. Are we now trapped in committee upon committees, looking ofor circular approvals?
21:25 rweait1: Complete nonsense.
21:25 rweait1: This is an example of us tripping over ourselves. We're supposed to get things out of the way for each other.
21:26 rweait1: You think MT and other need to aprrove this, fine send it to them. get it approved, but get the to run it.
21:26 rweait1: get them to run it.
21:27 toffehoff: With all due respect, but I think you're blowing this out of proportion.
21:27 toffehoff: MT is not running things themselves.
21:27 rweait1: has MT had opportunity to comment on this yet?
21:27 rweait1: I say yes.
21:28 rweait1: even thought the task was given to CWG by the board.
21:28 rweait1: nobody objected to that.
21:28 rweait1: not board, not MT. No objections.
21:29 rweait1: So is board incapable of selecting a group for a task (CWG), or is CWG incapable of executing a task assigned by the board.?
21:29 rweait1: Where is the problem?
21:30 rweait1: Henk, I think you +1'ed the proposal.
21:30 rweait1: Did you want to refine that position?
21:30 rweait1: Does it really need to go to MT for more backup?
21:31 harry-wood: Well I think the main question is (as always) who's going to *do* it. So far its been you doing it all. Are discontent with that situation, or with too much discussion around it?
21:32 harry-wood: We discuss and help more within CWG, or we can discuss and ask in MT for ideas to get more volunteers involved in it, if manpower is a problem
21:32 rweait1: Are we content with this staying the responsibliity of CWG?
21:32 toffehoff: Guys, I really hate meetings on IRC. I'm more than happy to explain this via phone/skype.
21:32 toffehoff: The problem here is we're talking on different frequencies.
21:33 rweait1: I'm absolutely fine with this being responsibility of the Award Committee or the MT, or whomever.
21:33 rweait1: but so far, no volunteers.
21:33 rweait1: Do we need to put out a call for volunteers to run this?
21:33 rweait1: Then let's do that.
21:33 toffehoff: The only thing I want to do, is to make sure that that is still the case.
21:34 toffehoff: That MT also says (so we can minute this) that this is with CWG
21:34 RichardF: nods
21:34 rweait1: because board saying that isn't sufficient?
21:34 JonathanB: My understanding was that MT didn't make policy decisions like that, only operational ones.
21:35 JonathanB: Policy was still the board.
21:36 toffehoff: I want the MT have minuted they also agree having this handled with CWG.
21:36 harry-wood: Past few MT meeting has focussed entirely on license change
21:37 harry-wood: possibly to the detriment of other issues
21:37 harry-wood: There's another MT meeting on Thursday
21:38 harry-wood: I think 6pm GMT, but that's still being decided (Henk's been running a doodle poll)
21:38 toffehoff: There is no mentioning of this in any minutes (of board nor MT) as far as I remember
21:38 toffehoff: Yes it's set to 6pm
21:39 harry-wood: Anyone want to represent CWG at the MT meeting?
21:39 harry-wood: I can do it
21:40 harry-wood: but if anyone else is keen… feel free
21:41 harry-wood: if not… Any other issues to bring to MT? I guess the focus will still be on rebuild/remapping
21:41 JonathanB: For the record childcare commitments mean I can never make a 6pm GMT/BST meeting
21:43 harry-wood: Are you in on the management@ emails jonathanB?
21:43 JonathanB: No
21:43 rweait1: we had a nice update from OWG on hardware. Posted to blog.
21:43 rweait1: Be nice to get updates on anything concrete from any other groups.
21:44 toffehoff: Just seen it, great.
21:44 rweait1: Anything from EWG? New software packages or VMS or something?
21:45 RichardF: not yet
21:45 harry-wood: There's a downtime impending
21:45 RichardF: think there might be stuff in the next few weeks
21:45 harry-wood: grant was talking about announcing this. Did he announce it anywhere yet?
21:46 JonathanB: I'll find out the details from Grant and stick it on the social networks.
21:46 JonathanB: Grant's pretty good about sending advance warning to the announce@ list as well
21:48 toffehoff: There is a hackweekend coming up in Toronto. I also heard something about Karlsruhe?
21:48 rweait1: I think Karsruhe completed yesterday.
21:48 rweait1: Toronto is 16-18 March.
21:49 rweait1: DC was alst month (and awesome) :-)
21:49 rweait1: last month.
21:50 toffehoff: Anything we could blog about the upcoming Toronto weekend on blog.osmf?
21:50 harry-wood: Karlsruhe happened a week ago
21:51 rweait1: Nope. not a foundation event.
21:51 rweait1: I'll send a note to OGD though.
21:51 harry-wood: I wanted blog just before it to help promote it but Steve's not enabled me for posting to opengeodata
21:51 harry-wood: I'll send him a reminder
21:52 harry-wood: (I did send him a reminder last week when I said I would… still waiting on that)
21:52 You have disconnected
21:53 You have connected
21:53 harry-wood left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).
21:53 rweait1: I'm being called away. I'll be back for CWG full time starting lat April. See you then.
21:53 rweait1 left the room.
21:54 harry-wood1: ooh. lost the connection there
21:54 toffehoff: welcome back ;-)
21:54 toffehoff: you did not miss much.
21:54 harry-wood1: So rweait1 seems…. annoyed
21:55 toffehoff: btw: any particular reason why we have the CWG meetings on IRC?
21:55 harry-wood1: He's not the only one. Couple of the OWG guys are discontent. Seemingly for the opposite reason. They want more decisions routed through the MT not directly from the board
21:56 RichardF: toffehoff: fwiw I don't do phone calls
21:56 harry-wood1: We discussed it when RichardF joined CWG.
21:57 harry-wood1: Actually I think we said we'd chop and change a bit
21:57 harry-wood1: do a mixture
21:57 harry-wood1: But maybe that was also when Hurricane was saying she prefered voice calls. Can't remember
21:57 JonathanB: She did. I prefer IRC to be honest.
21:58 JonathanB: It's easier to minute the meeting, you can pop away for a minute and not miss anything, and you can formulate your contribution without interruption.
21:58 harry-wood1: personally I prefer IRC, particularly if we're doing meetings so regularly.
21:58 toffehoff: I can see benefit of IRC, but I really hate it. Especially when having a "heated" discussion.
21:58 RichardF: I wouldn't presume to dictate, but personally I won't be part of any group that meets solely by voice - I have better things to do with my time
21:59 RichardF: but you may use that knowledge how you wish ;)
21:59 harry-wood1: there's pros & cons of voice. It's better for knowing how people are feeling, and for remembering we're all human :-)
22:00 RichardF: OSMF is rather weird in its insistence on doing everything by "meetings" rather than ongoing discussion
22:00 RichardF: but that's not going to change until the glorious revolution, so, meh
22:01 harry-wood1: Well it's true we should do more ongoing discussion. Actually the decision we were discussing earlier (CWG is to run the Ulf memorial award) has been discussed and decided by email.
22:01 RichardF: yep
22:01 harry-wood1: so we do manage it occasionally.
22:01 RichardF: we're better at it than most WGs ;)
22:02 harry-wood1: I think there's some sense in rounding off discussion and rubber-stamping decisions during a meeting
22:02 harry-wood1: regarding CWG I was wondering if we need collective TODO list somewhere
22:03 toffehoff: that might be a good idea....
22:03 RichardF: 1
22:03 harry-wood1: We were sort of managing these as "agenda items" which get copied from one meeting to the next, but some kind of TODO list might work better
22:04 JonathanB: Does it need to be private?
22:04 harry-wood1: electronic TODO lists always get a bit depressing in my experience. I like paper ones because periodically I lose the piece of paper :-)
22:05 RichardF: laughs
22:06 harry-wood1: private? dunno. maybe. a lot of things on it would not need to be private but. Maybe it shouldn't be findable by everyone
22:07 toffehoff: Depends on what we want to put in there.
22:07 toffehoff: If we add them with comments, it sometimes is not very handy to have a public list.
22:07 harry-wood1: I'm thinking of the list of broadly what plates we're currently spinning
22:07 toffehoff: ... if we add comments to the list I mean.
22:08 harry-wood1: Shall I make a private google doc for us?
22:08 toffehoff: You'll make if in the OSMF space?
22:08 harry-wood1: and we can decide if we want to make it public later?
22:08 toffehoff: if = in
22:08 RichardF: sounds good
22:08 harry-wood1: don't know how to do that
22:09 harry-wood1: maybe you should create the doc toffehoff
22:09 toffehoff: ok
22:09 harry-wood1: email us a link
22:09 toffehoff: will do.
22:10 harry-wood1: So aside from the TODO to create the TODO list. And the TODO (which I can help with) to write the TODO list...
22:10 harry-wood1: anything else TODO?
22:11 harry-wood1: I saw RichardF emailed the UK list with "one month to go" remapping email
22:12 harry-wood1: We missed the 1 month mark for a blog post or other announcements on worldwide channels
22:12 RichardF: should we do that on OGD or similar?
22:13 harry-wood1: yeah. Only thing is my confidence in the switch happening on time is still not exactly high
22:13 harry-wood1: so I sort of feel like deflecting attention form the april 1st day
22:14 toffehoff: doc created and you should have received an email
22:14 JonathanB: toffehoff: Can you invite me as jonobennett@gmail.com please?
22:15 toffehoff: JonathanB: done
22:15 JonathanB: Ta
22:15 JonathanB: Sorry - Google gets terribly confused by my setup
22:15 JonathanB: The OSM Facebook page will be switched over to the new timeline at the end of this month. I've been adding things to do, and will continue to do so, but others could take a look if they like.
22:16 harry-wood1: things to do? ooh ok
22:16 harry-wood1: on the doc you mean
22:16 JonathanB: Equally, we can choose to push the timeline live before then if we think it's reayd
22:16 JonathanB: ready, even
22:18 toffehoff: Same time next week?
22:18 harry-wood1: Give than that the switch is happening "some time very soon" is there any change we need to make to any of the 'Remapping' information? or to license change information in various places?
22:18 harry-wood1: (I mean to adjust the wording to say "some time very soon")
22:19 harry-wood1: Probably lots of places where we could start rewording things
22:19 toffehoff: We have to check with the rebuild group I think.
22:19 harry-wood1: And there will be *many* places were we need to past tense everything when the licence change has happened.
22:19 JonathanB: I think with regards to the switch, all we can do as CWG is to offer our services to the other groups and encourage them to make use of us to avoid any misunderstandings.
22:22 harry-wood1: Perhaps the time to step things up a gear on those fronts, will be after the upcoming downtimes
22:24 harry-wood1: So let's finish with this for today
22:26 toffehoff: ok. 'till next week.