This was a Communication Working Group meeting on Mon 21st May 2012
- Quick chat about license change updates
- Long chat about comms protocol doc
21:00 toffehoff: Hey Harry!
21:00 harry-wood: Greetings
21:00 toffehoff: Back home?
21:00 harry-wood: Are we having CWG?
21:00 harry-wood: Yeah back home
21:00 toffehoff: I think we do have a CWG.]
21:00 toffehoff: Looks like you and me are currently present.
21:01 : rweait1 [~email@example.com] entered the room.
21:01 toffehoff: hey Richard
21:01 rweait1: Am I late?
21:01 harry-wood: hiya
21:01 toffehoff: We were just wondering who else would show up.
21:02 harry-wood: do we have a RichardF?
21:02 rweait1: I would vote for having a RichardF and a JonathanB
21:02 RichardF: you do
21:02 harry-wood: hello!
21:02 toffehoff: Hello!
21:02 RichardF: is perpetually bemused by time zones
21:03 harry-wood: Are you not on Charlybury standard time at the moment?
21:04 RichardF: Burton standard time tonight. Like Charlbury but less pretty, and with more beer.
21:04 harry-wood: What's on the agenda for today then?
21:05 harry-wood: License updates. Comms protocol. What else?
21:07 toffehoff: Think that's it
21:07 harry-wood: License updates are getting kind of boring :-)
21:07 rweait1: Yup.
21:07 harry-wood: But people do appreciate the weekly update
21:08 RichardF: I _believe_ we're almost there...
21:08 rweait1: ping mackerski. We're taking your name in vain again. :-)
21:09 harry-wood: Guess he's not joining us today
21:10 RichardF: well, anyway, I'd anticipate we'll be moving to the redaction starting in a week or two
21:10 rweait1: Somebody else want to lead that with Dermot and Matt this week?
21:10 rweait1: for posting to rebuild on Wednesday.
21:11 harry-wood: ok can do
21:11 rweait1: Thank you, harry-wood
21:11 harry-wood: Maybe I'll see zere in the pub tomorrow
21:11 toffehoff: +1
21:12 rweait1: Do any of you have a contact at a bicycle manufacturer?
21:12 toffehoff: why?
21:13 rweait1: Might be nice to get a manufacturer to donate a bike (per year?) for the award.
21:13 toffehoff: Ah.
21:13 RichardF: wish I did, but sorry, no
21:14 rweait1: I'll see what I can find thought my network.
21:14 rweait1: through
21:14 harry-wood: Could try asking gravitystorm
21:14 rweait1: +1
21:14 toffehoff: I can try and see what I can do in my network as well.
21:15 harry-wood: Shall we talk about the comms policy RichardF?
21:15 RichardF: ok!
21:15 harry-wood: I spent too much time dreaming up some feedback, but mostly my feedback was… "looks good"
21:15 RichardF: but: important to note - not a policy, a protocol
21:15 rweait1: so, "Comms policy", I guess?
21:15 harry-wood: "Comms protocol"
21:15 harry-wood: OK
21:16 RichardF: deliberately restrictive scope. there are lots of things we could document, but if we start trying to do everything, we'll get nowhere.
21:16 RichardF: so this is purposefully: when we communicate on behalf of osmf, how we do it.
21:16 RichardF: nothing else,
21:16 RichardF: not what we communicate, not who to, or any of that.
21:17 rweait1: Henk's email asks, I think, "can can communicate on behalf of OSM." Is that a good place to start?
21:17 RichardF: just a simple document to try and avoid some of the problems we've encountered over the last few months.
21:17 rweait1: can can -> who can
21:18 toffehoff: It might be good to also define what we are communicating about.
21:19 RichardF: sure. but I'm a little anxious that we don't get stuck on building a does-everything monolithic document.
21:20 RichardF: what we communicate can and should change. we should have a rolling Comms Plan for that.
21:20 RichardF: this is not that document.
21:20 toffehoff: Sure.
21:20 harry-wood: Yeah I think it's a good idea to limit scope
21:20 rweait1: I think the simple goal is worthy. Are we aligned on not wanting a repeat of some of the recent issues?
21:20 RichardF: this is the document we were asked to draw up by the board. AIUI anyway :)
21:20 RichardF: rweait1: +1
21:21 harry-wood: Well "recent issues" is something I take issue with actually
21:21 rweait1: How so?
21:21 harry-wood: as I've said before nothing's gone wrong with any comms coming CWG. there's been a few people kicking up a fuss about nothing
21:22 RichardF: harry-wood: yeah, this isn't a CWG-specific doc. there have been other comms that have gone awry.
21:22 rweait1: I agree with CWG not being the problem.
21:22 rweait1: Let's list the matters that have caused the concern.
21:22 harry-wood: but then perhaps our protocol can help stop people kicking up a fuss
21:22 RichardF: I hope so.
21:23 toffehoff: this should not be only a protocol for CWG.
21:23 harry-wood: matters that have caused a concern:
21:23 rweait1: Henk? What inspired the board to request the protocol?
21:23 toffehoff: It should be something broad OSMF
21:23 toffehoff: We (as OSMF) do not have a policy on comms.
21:24 toffehoff: So, we all do what we personally think is correct.
21:24 RichardF: personally the turning point for me was when I found myself reluctant to answer an (Apple-related) question because I expected someone else on the board to then chew me up for it.
21:24 harry-wood: hmmm. answering a question on which channel?
21:24 toffehoff: There we have it: I did not know about this
21:24 RichardF: press enquiry.
21:24 harry-wood: aha right
21:24 toffehoff: (and I was the person within board handling this issue)
21:25 toffehoff: Some issues might be good to say who is handling all press inquiries
21:25 harry-wood: so responding to press inquiries would be covered by the comms protocol, along with the very public comms channels.
21:25 toffehoff: But, we do not have a policy for this.
21:26 RichardF: right. so in these circumstances, the protocol says that a board member can request sight of anything that goes out on a particular issue, as long as they in turn agree to respond promptly and reasonably.
21:26 rweait1: I'd think this is one of the issues of concern. http://opengeodata.org/google-ip-vandalizing-openstreetmap
21:27 RichardF: rweait1: yes.
21:27 rweait1: any others?
21:27 toffehoff: RichardF I do see a need for more coordination.
21:27 harry-wood: Well yes. That blog post was was an issue of concerm. My impression was that after RichardF admonished Steve & Mikel about it, he the proceeded look for problems to make a fuss about one two other occasions
21:27 harry-wood: "he" meaning steve
21:27 RichardF: that and Apple and I think there was another... but I've forgotten. or blanked it out of my mind :)
21:28 RichardF: so, it's a real world problem which we can try and fix.
21:28 toffehoff: So, what is our policy on that. We all have our own ideas. But it is not written down anywhere.
21:28 toffehoff: to me, that's the reason for asking for a comms policy.
21:28 RichardF: toffehoff: yep, that's what the protocol is intended to answer.
21:29 toffehoff: Talking semantics: protocol sounds like a step-by-step plan.
21:29 toffehoff: Is that what you intend?
21:30 rweait1: So in both (all?) cases, we're concerned about Board Members Gone Wild? :-)
21:30 toffehoff: Or CWG going wild ;-)
21:30 toffehoff: Or community members in the field going wild
21:30 harry-wood: The third case as the ESRI blog post in which there was a decision to keep a secret…. except there wasn't
21:31 rweait1: Ah, yes.
21:31 toffehoff: Ho wait: I oppose to the term "secret"
21:31 RichardF: toffehoff: "the accepted or established code of procedure or behaviour in any group, organisation or situation" is what my 'Mac dictionary says :)
21:32 RichardF: from Old French 'prothochole'
21:32 toffehoff: That sounds like a step-by-step plan: "procedure"
21:32 toffehoff: What does you dictionary says about policy?
21:32 RichardF: heehee. I'm not that fussed really. you call it a jam doughnut if you likr
21:33 toffehoff: Maybe good to first define what this document is intended to do and not to do.
21:33 rweait1: harry-wood, I apologize for my part of the ESRI thing. :(
21:33 rweait1: I thought mentioning the amount was "icky" then some others turned it into a huge conspiracy.
21:33 rweait1: :-/
21:34 toffehoff: +1, hence my objection to the term "secret"
21:34 rweait1: perhaps our protocol should include closing comments on the blog? :-)
21:35 toffehoff: LOL
21:35 harry-wood: has there been more comments?
21:35 rweait1: I think the conspiracy theories run a little wilder in comments than they do on lists, but I could be wrong.
21:36 rweait1: I haven't noticed any recently.
21:37 toffehoff: I can think of policy to close comments after a certain amount of time.
21:37 rweait1: okay, so with those three episodes in mind, who are we addressing?
21:37 rweait1: is it board + WGs?
21:37 rweait1: I don't think we could reasonable try to extend further than that.
21:37 toffehoff: you mean with this policy / protocol?
21:37 rweait1: reasonably
21:37 harry-wood: Well we're addressing anyone who's speaking on behalf of the foundation… who may be construed to be doing so
21:38 rweait1: toffehoff: yes.
21:38 toffehoff: Then I'm with Harry: anyone on behalf of OSMF
21:38 rweait1: harry-wood, yes, so board + WGs (+ MT if that isn't a WG)
21:38 toffehoff: and anyone else ....
21:39 rweait1: who else woulf be able to speak for "OSM"? the community is the community. We can't bind them.
21:39 rweait1: It would be pitchforks and torches, and I'd lead the march. :-)
21:39 toffehoff: No, anyone on behalf of OSMF. Let's not restrict that any further.
21:40 toffehoff: Not OSM, but OSMF
21:40 rweait1: okay. so, still Board + WGs, right?
21:40 : You have disconnected
21:41 : You have connected
21:41 : The topic for #osm-strategic is: Lets just replace the front page with a link to google maps
21:41 harry-wood: oopse lost it for a second there
21:41 toffehoff: So, what is wrong with "anybody on behalf of OSMF"?
21:41 rweait1: Are you concerned about contractors like the book keeper and lawyers?
21:42 rweait1: harry-wood1: what did you see last?
21:42 toffehoff: Further specification only leads to possible discussion.
21:42 harry-wood: Well.. I guess we can say that it would a breach of protocol for other's to be pretending to speak for the foundation, but the protocol is mainly governing OSMF channels anyway
21:43 harry-wood: As in… channels which only board/WG folks can post to
21:44 harry-wood: Only exception to that is the "responding to press" thing
21:44 toffehoff: If somebody, who is member of the Foundation, goes out and talks to other people say "this is what the position of the OSMF is" we need to be able to point to a protocol/policy saying: this is the proper way where to find the official position of OSMF
21:45 toffehoff: A member can speak as "i'm a member of the Foundation" and my opinion is.
21:45 harry-wood: RichardF : what d'you think? within scope of the doc?
21:45 toffehoff: It needs also to be clear to the outside world how to get an official statement of the OSMF
21:45 : harry-wood left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
21:46 rweait1: To get an official statement from OSMF, 1) hold your breath. 2) ...
21:46 RichardF: could be. what sentence are you proposing changing, to what?
21:49 toffehoff: I think we're pretty much in agreement that this policy/protocol covers all communications on behalf of OSMF
21:50 toffehoff: E.g board, WG, MT, but not limiting to that.
21:51 rweait1: toffehoff should we include OSMF members?
21:51 rweait1: and if so, how?
21:51 toffehoff: If they talk on behalf of OSMF, yes. If they talk on personal level and state that they are member of OSMF, no
21:52 rweait1: so if a random stranger posts something nonsensical, we'd say, "That's not somebody with standing to speak for OSMF."
21:52 toffehoff: Members can talk freely, but on their own behalf. Not OSMF
21:53 toffehoff: yes.
21:53 toffehoff: And we can say that, because this is our policy
21:54 rweait1: So who could possibly have standing to speak for OSMF? Who are these others? can we leave it at "Board and WGs" and then list "others" when we discover them?
21:54 rweait1: Or is there some secret other about which I am ignorant?
21:54 toffehoff: No, but why limit if there is no reason to limit?
21:55 toffehoff: Why would you only leave it to board and WG's?
21:55 rweait1: because we're fundamentally open, and this protocol steps away from that by adding restrictions. (sensible restrictions perhaps), we should be clear that we are not trying to mute the general public.
21:55 toffehoff: There is a difference in OSM and OSMF.
21:56 rweait1: saying "others" suggests that there might be others who have the ability to speak for OSMF.
21:56 rweait1: And I don't know how that might be.
21:56 rweait1: how / who
21:56 harry-wood1: well I think henk is saying that they don't have that ability… and therefore they shouldn't
21:56 rweait1: but we can move on. I'm not communicating, I think.
21:57 toffehoff: Stating this relates to all comms on behalf of OSMF. Where are the "others" in that sentence?
21:57 rweait1: we're coming up to the hour. How are we going to leave this for the week?
21:57 toffehoff: I have no problem in stating that members can talk freely what they think. Only that that will not be on behalf of OSMF
21:58 harry-wood1: I think you're right. We could add something to the doc. Can you email RichardF with a suggested paragraph
21:58 harry-wood1: It needs to not appear as if we're trying mute people as RichardW says
21:58 harry-wood1: (obviously we can't)
21:58 toffehoff: Sure.
21:59 harry-wood1: For me the problem with the doc, as I said in my email, was that it felt a bit restrictive towards the end
21:59 toffehoff: I'll transfer the doc to the OSMF gDoc. So we can all work on it.
22:00 harry-wood1: but mostly I think it's fine.
22:00 rweait1: can we match privilege with restrictions? Those permitted to ocasionally speak on behalf of the OSMF, must do so within the restrictions of the protocol. Those covered include ....
22:00 rweait1: OFFS. anything ut a gdoc, please?
22:00 harry-wood1: hehehe
22:00 harry-wood1: rweait you said piratepad doesn't work for you for some reason right?
22:01 rweait1: smoke signals or semaphore flags. Please?
22:01 rweait1: piratepad? wouldn't know. doesn't ring a bell.
22:01 rweait1: I've got another appt at the top of the hour. so I'm out of here. See you next week.
22:01 toffehoff: Come on…. We currently have a gDoc account.
22:02 toffehoff: Let's not leave things in all places.
22:02 toffehoff: Till next week!
22:02 harry-wood1: OK… well I think we've covered the topics.
22:02 harry-wood1: We need to email RichardF with more specific feedback though
22:02 toffehoff: Next week again?
22:03 toffehoff: RichardF gone?
22:03 harry-wood1: yup
22:03 RichardF: no, it's ok, if you want to hack on it in a Google Doc that's cool
22:03 toffehoff: It's also a good place to leave comments in the text if we want to.
22:04 harry-wood1: rweait1 doesn't like it though :-)
22:04 toffehoff: Well, he already uses it with LWG
22:04 toffehoff: gDocs I mean.
22:05 harry-wood1: We started using one called https://hackpad.com/ with lots of HOT docs
22:05 harry-wood1: similar idae
22:05 toffehoff: We as in "HOT"?
22:05 harry-wood1: yeah. Well wonderchook uses it a lot
22:05 toffehoff: It would be fine, but then only when we move everything of our gDoc apps.
22:06 toffehoff: Let's not scatter things around.
22:06 toffehoff: That's my main problem with switching apps.
22:07 harry-wood1: Well there is that problem certainly, but I think you can regarded those as a more ephemeral place to sketch ideas
22:07 harry-wood1: gdocs have proper permissions (which can also be a PITA)
22:08 toffehoff: Everything has it's pro and con.
22:08 harry-wood1: but yeah… maybe whack it in a gdoc and rweait will manage I'm sure
22:08 toffehoff: :-)
22:09 harry-wood1: You want to do that then, and drop us an email with your ideas for tweaks?
22:10 harry-wood1: I will have to try to remember to do the Wednesday license change update email as promised
22:10 toffehoff: You should have a mail with link in your mailbox.
22:10 toffehoff: Thanks!
22:10 harry-wood1: cool
22:10 harry-wood1: And I guess that's about it until next monday
22:11 toffehoff: Guess that too. Till next week!
22:13 : toffehoff left the room (quit: Quit: toffehoff).