CWG meeting 2012-07-16

Communications Working Group meeting on Monday 16th July 2012

Topics

  • OSMF comms policy document
  • Redaction bot progress & license change comms

IRC log:

21:01 harry-wood: hello
21:02 : JonathanB [~jono@146.90.133.141] entered the room.
21:02 harry-wood: hello JonathanB
21:02 JonathanB: Good evening
21:03 harry-wood: no sign of Henk
21:03 harry-wood: Do we have RichardF?
21:05 JonathanB: This isn't one of his town council weeks, is it?
21:05 : toffehoff [~toffehoff@524A475D.cm-4-3b.dynamic.ziggo.nl] entered the room.
21:05 toffehoff: Hi all. Sorry for being late....
21:05 harry-wood: No I have 'CWG voice meeting' in my diary for next week
21:05 harry-wood: Hi toffehoff
21:06 toffehoff: Hi Harry.
21:06 JonathanB: I'm away next week and the week after
21:06 harry-wood: oh. Just me and Henk having a voice call then hey?
21:06 toffehoff: A quick question to you guys.
21:06 toffehoff: What do you feel about Google sponsoring SotM?
21:07 JonathanB: I have no ideological problem with that
21:07 harry-wood: It's a bit weird.
21:08 toffehoff: Great. I don't want to have them being the punching bag of the conference (and being sponsor at the same time(.
21:08 toffehoff: That's why I'm asking Harry ...
21:08 JonathanB: Well, I suspect people will still want to point out the flaws in Google Map Maker, but I think they're used to that by now.
21:09 toffehoff: Now talking with them on paying for Raul Krauthausen to come over. (Wheelmap guy)
21:09 harry-wood: I spend a lot of time persuading people to switch2osm and also telling people that google 'Map Maker' is evil.
21:09 toffehoff: And Raul giving a keynote....
21:09 harry-wood: It actually sort of detracts from that message if people can turn around and say "ah by they sponsored the conference I see"
21:10 harry-wood: but I guess ultimately we want them to use our maps. Maybe one day they will.
21:10 JonathanB: Yes, exactly
21:11 toffehoff: Let me quote Ed Parsons on WhereCampEU:
21:11 toffehoff: "Google wants OSM to succeed".
21:11 harry-wood: but they'd rather just succeed themselves :-)
21:12 toffehoff: I read it as: We would like to have OSM as our main competitor .....
21:12 toffehoff: :-)
21:12 RichardF: hello, I'm here :)
21:12 toffehoff: Hi Richard.
21:12 harry-wood: Hello
21:12 RichardF: sorry, very briefly called away from the keyboard
21:13 harry-wood: This isn't an issue for CWG to decide of course
21:13 RichardF: and personally - no qualms at all about Google sponsoring SotM
21:13 toffehoff: No it isn't, but it might be seen as "a bit weird" to quote you Harry.
21:13 toffehoff: Just checking what you guys felt about it.
21:13 JonathanB: They've given money for servers before
21:13 RichardF: maybe I should aim to get a "better than Map Maker" JavaScript editor finished just in time ;)
21:13 harry-wood: Could be an interesting thing to put to a vote of the OSMF membership
21:14 RichardF: interesting certainly, not necessarily illuminating though!
21:14 toffehoff: OK. back to CWG.
21:14 harry-wood: Yeah. It would kick up up new kind of fuss :-)
21:15 RichardF: ok. what to discuss today? would be good to have a recap of the redaction situation, for one
21:15 harry-wood: We have a management team meeting Thursday hey?
21:15 toffehoff: yes we do.
21:16 harry-wood: I'm supposed to be mapping a cake slice, but will join that instead
21:16 harry-wood: So yeah. agenda for today
21:16 harry-wood: we nudged something off the agenda last time
21:16 harry-wood: Comms policy doc I think
21:17 toffehoff: Ah yes. Would be nice to talk about that.
21:17 harry-wood: how are we doing with that
21:17 harry-wood: goes to open it
21:18 RichardF: could you remind me of the link?

...gdoc edit link redacted...

21:19 toffehoff: You should have access ....
21:19 harry-wood: So henks crossed out some of RichardF's original text right?
21:20 toffehoff: The green is an addition.
21:21 toffehoff: Wouldn't say crossed out :-) rephrased some parts ....
21:22 RichardF: generally I can live with most of it - not always how I'd have phrased things but life is too short to get worried about these things :)
21:23 RichardF: the only thing I will stick my neck out about is footnote [e]
21:24 RichardF: outside its own communication channels, OSMF does not have any right to control what its volunteers say. You only get to do that if you're paying people ;)
21:24 harry-wood: footnote e?
21:26 toffehoff: Agree, but volunteers also need to understand that if they are talking as being someone from the Foundation, that that sometimes may result in some akward situations.
21:26 harry-wood: RichardF can you add a comment to the bit you're referring to?
21:27 RichardF: Henk - oh, absolutely. the policy is essentially about what we do (a) on OSMF communication channels, and/or (b) when speaking for the Foundation.
21:27 RichardF: it's not really our business to change anything else :)
21:27 RichardF: (obviously, if someone says something outrageous elsewhere then the board could pass a no confidence motion in them, but that's a matter of board discipline rather than comms policy)
21:28 RichardF: Harry - well, what I was thinking, was that after your voice meeting next week, I could take this document and tidy it up into a final version which we can then pass with a nod of the head.
21:28 RichardF: would that seem ok to people?
21:28 toffehoff: Sure. But the comms policy should make it more clear on where the boundaries are on when talking for Foundation or personal opinion.
21:29 RichardF: well, the boundary is whether you say you're talking for the foundation or not :)
21:30 toffehoff: That might sometimes be a bit blurry. Especially when board members are talking.
21:31 toffehoff: I've had in CWG several times the response after I've suggested something "Oh, so the board thinks we should now .... " etc.
21:31 RichardF: sure. that's why we have the policy - so it's clear when people are talking for the foundation, and when they're not :)
21:31 toffehoff: I think we're pretty close on our positions.
21:31 RichardF: indeed.
21:31 RichardF: I think it's important to remember that we want the best people in OSM to be on OSMF. And the best people will have differences of opinions.
21:31 harry-wood: Well I think there's a whole tonne of stuff which is not included in this policy (very deliberately) so maybe we need to state that more explicitly
21:32 harry-wood: A lot of other general communication practice should be covered in broad brushstrokes by the "community code of conduct" http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_code_of_conduct_(Draft)
21:33 toffehoff: Difference of opinions is fine. It's applauded. But it the arena in which the debate is held
21:33 RichardF: yeyp
21:33 RichardF: ok, so Henk, you've made your suggested edits. Harry, do you have any suggestions to make?
21:34 harry-wood: Perhaps the code of conduct should have some stuff about "don't pretend to be the foundation" and maybe even "refer important press communications to the foundation"
21:34 toffehoff: I wouldn't mix is with the CoC. The latter is a community CoC. We're now talking about a Foundation policy.
21:34 toffehoff: ah. yes.
21:34 harry-wood: CoC has things for which the punishment is ….a jolly good telling off
21:35 harry-wood: but obviously if a foundation board member or working group member is violating CoC rules, then we have other recourse
21:37 RichardF: ok. does anyone have any suggestions as to where to go from here?
21:37 harry-wood: I also need to actually spend more time reading this
21:38 harry-wood: and then comment. So let's talk about it some more next time. Looks like it'll be just me and you anyway Henk
21:38 toffehoff: :-)
21:38 harry-wood: I'll read it and ponder it some more before next week
21:38 RichardF: heavens to betsy, reading something before making comment on it. that'll never catch on in OSM ;)
21:39 harry-wood: hehe
21:39 harry-wood: Well it does need tl:dr section
21:39 harry-wood: :-)
21:39 RichardF: ok. next item, redaction comms?
21:39 harry-wood: "This policy in a nutshell" as wikipedia calls it
21:39 harry-wood: Right yes
21:39 harry-wood: next item
21:40 harry-wood: I think we should blog again
21:40 harry-wood: Summaries where we're at
21:40 RichardF: go for it!
21:40 RichardF: plenty of ml postings for you to draw from
21:40 toffehoff: I think the response are pretty positive so far.
21:40 harry-wood: yep. Steal some text from there
21:40 toffehoff: (the ones I've seen).
21:40 RichardF: it's all going well
21:40 JonathanB: I think people are more intrigued than annoyed
21:41 JonathanB: Certainly the malcontents are long gone anyway
21:41 harry-wood: goes to look at the pretty map again http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php
21:41 RichardF: harry-wood: who did that map? it's excellent!
21:41 toffehoff: So, what is the result for the UK after the bot has passed?
21:41 RichardF: Weybridge 0, Rest Of The UK 1
21:42 harry-wood: Ooh it's re-running London now
21:42 RichardF: "Small Earthquake in Surrey, Not Many Dead"
21:42 RichardF: the UK's in very good shape really. A few housing estates in Manchester, and the area where 80n lives. Otherwise fine.
21:42 harry-wood: the tiles seem to have already re-rendered with some missing data around London and Weybridge
21:42 harry-wood: it doesn't look too bad
21:43 harry-wood: I'm holding off until the bot's finished before patching up some gaps
21:43 JonathanB: From a comms PoV then, it's all going well and the sky hasn't fallen in
21:43 RichardF: definitely.
21:43 harry-wood: There's some comms challenges ahead though
21:43 RichardF: there'll be some tricky patches to navigate ahead
21:43 RichardF: y
21:44 RichardF: Australia, LA, and possibly Poland and parts of Germany may be difficult
21:45 harry-wood: I'm pondering wiki pages which need rewriting, but more important than that… We'll need a new copyright page on osm.org Good job for you RichardF
21:45 RichardF: but I don't think there's any more preparation we can do for them
21:45 RichardF: harry-wood: no problem. I've already rewritten the Legal FAQ on the wiki (Legal_FAQ/ODbL or something like that)
21:45 toffehoff: When we're hitting these places (germany etc), what's our comm PoV for loosing some data?
21:46 JonathanB: "It's a shame these mappers didn't want to move forward, but we respect their wishes, and the tiny percentage of data lost doesn't harm OSM"
21:46 toffehoff: In case some person is going to scream murder and hell ....
21:46 RichardF: yep
21:46 RichardF: all data still available under original licence as part of final planet file
21:47 toffehoff: shame ?
21:47 RichardF: and the rate of growth of OSM shows that the project will soon recoup the losses, and more
21:47 toffehoff: Sounds positive.
21:47 harry-wood: I predict some people throwing hissy fits when they realise that OdBL does in fact not solve all legal problems ever
21:48 JonathanB: toffehoff: We didn't want to remove contributions from non-agreers, but we have no legal or moral right to do so.
21:48 JonathanB: Sorry "not to do so"
21:48 JonathanB: That's still not right, is it?
21:48 toffehoff: OK, but "shame" sounds a bit harsh to me (as a foreigner).
21:49 toffehoff: Semantics ....
21:49 toffehoff: :-)
21:49 RichardF: "Obviously we would have preferred it if these mappers didn't..." etc. etc.
21:49 RichardF: or rather
21:49 RichardF: "if these mappers had agreed to"
21:49 RichardF: I'm getting my negatives in a twist too now
21:49 JonathanB: toffehoff: It's not interpreted literally in the British idiom
21:50 JonathanB: "They didn't agree to relicence, and we respect their wishes"
21:50 toffehoff: Sounds better ....
21:52 harry-wood: It's actually too late, but do we need to do better with getting information about the bot translated?
21:53 toffehoff: We might want to have the key - info translated.
21:54 toffehoff: Not sure what the key-info is though ....
21:54 harry-wood: Maybe after posting an update, I'll hunt down some of blog translator users and get them to do it
21:54 RichardF: good plan
21:54 toffehoff: +1
21:54 RichardF: ok, do we have anything else to discuss this evening?
21:55 toffehoff: Don't think so (also looking at the clock)
21:55 RichardF: ok. suggest we call it a night then!
21:55 RichardF: good night all :)
21:55 harry-wood: ok. I think I just volunteered to do lots of stuff
21:55 toffehoff: :-)
21:56 harry-wood: I'll email you when it's done!
21:56 harry-wood: hehe
21:56 RichardF: cool!
21:56 toffehoff: Awesome!
21:56 harry-wood: Got anything else JonathanB?
21:56 JonathanB: Not this week
21:57 harry-wood: So next time we'll do a voice call, but just me & henk
21:57 harry-wood: (others welcome if it turns out you're available of course)
21:57 toffehoff: Till next time!
21:58 harry-wood: bye then!