Working Group Minutes/MWG 2017-05-02


  • Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Paul Norman (Stereo)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Ilya Zverev (Zverik)

Open issues

  • E-Mail rejected as spam on
  • Member self service area
  • Welcome message to new members
  • Membership fee waiver program

Last minutes

Minutes from 2016-02-01 were accepted.

Clifford leaving MWG

The MWG thanks Clifford for his participation.

Fee waiver program

Michael proposes a guide line for the fee waiver program. Some details are discussed. It is concluded that it needs further review.

Bank transfer form

The new bank transfer form is accepted and live.

osmf-talk subscriptions

members are not automatically subscribed or removed from the osmf-talk mailing list. It was discovered that there are about 300 members missing from the list, and that about 150 should be removed, because their membership ended.


18:01 < jonwit> Hello this is jonathan witcoski 
18:01  * SJFriedl is Steve Friedl, Southern California
18:02  * pnorman is Paul Norman
18:04 < datendelphin> hi
18:05 < datendelphin> Michael Spreng, Switzerland, so rather early in the
      evening :)
18:06  * datendelphin is looking for his notes
18:06 < jonwit> It's lunch time on the east coast of the US. 
18:08 < datendelphin> I think I'm sorted
18:09 < datendelphin> So welcome to the MWG meeting. The last minutes are
      published here
18:10 < datendelphin> Are they OK for everyone?
18:10 < Zverik> by the way, I've waited until my membership lapsed to see that
      there are indeed three e-mails sent
18:12 < datendelphin> Ah nice. I coudn't find out why some reminders were not
      sent. Now I just hope the problem solved itself. Maybe we should make
      spot checks from time to time if they were at least recorded
18:12  * SJFriedl missed last meeting so cannot verify the minutes.
18:12 < pnorman> Same with missing last meeting
18:13 < pnorman> I suspect any missing reminders were actually missed
      somewhere on the user's end, either with their mail server, mail client,
      or them
18:14 < jonwit> I can verify the minutes
18:15 < jonwit> The missing mail reminders where being filtered into a spam
      folder from what they indicated last time 
18:16 < Zverik> minutes look good
18:16 < datendelphin> not sure about that, because the reminders get logged in
      civicrm, and there are some missing in the logs
18:16 < pnorman> ah
18:18 < datendelphin> Clifford Snow let me know that he wants to focus on fewer
      OSM projects to have more time. He leaves the MWG
18:19 < datendelphin> I would like to thank him in the name of the MWG for
18:19 < jonwit> I second that suggestion 
18:19 < SJFriedl> +1
18:19 < pnorman> +1
18:20 < Zverik> I agree
18:20 < datendelphin> So we should update the list here and the mwg@
18:21 < pnorman> I can update mwg@
18:21 < datendelphin> I think we can also remove Alberto and Milo, as they did
      not contribute since the initial meeting if I remember correctly
18:22 < Zverik> updated the wiki
18:23 < pnorman> updated mwg@ except for Alberto, since i'm not sure of their
      email and the list doesn't have names
18:25 < pnorman> updated again.
18:26 < datendelphin> any votes against dropping those two from the list? They
      can of course join again at any time
18:26  * SJFriedl is fine with it
18:26 < jonwit> I vote for removal
18:27 < Zverik> me too
18:27 < SJFriedl> +1
18:27 < datendelphin> as next topic I would suggest the waiver program. I hope
      you all could read what I had prepared, even though the PDF seems to be
18:28 < datendelphin> My idea was to make it public, as transparent as
      possible. And at this point it is still very generic
18:29 < datendelphin> Not much more than the text of the resolution. If the
      need arises, we can later start an internal document, after we had a few
18:29 < jonwit> I haven't seen it yet "broken link" but agree on being generic.
      Wait until we actually get a few waiver applications 
18:29 < pnorman> I found it too vague to evaluate to know if I meet the
      criteria or not, if I were a potential applicant.
18:30 < SJFriedl> I like the whole idea though the notion of us vetting "median
      income for the region" is pretty vague.
18:30 < datendelphin> jonwit you need to be logged in, as the pate is still a
      draft. if not logged in, you need to use the pdf or png
18:31 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: yes, but at least it's an argument agains
      someone from Switzerland telling us he can't afford it.
18:32 < datendelphin> I thought that could make the point clear that it is
      geared towards low income regions, not a generic "I don't have money"
      free pass
18:32 < SJFriedl> I guess my question is: just how much would a fee waver be
      open to abuse? 
18:32 < SJFriedl> oh, well that's a fair point.
18:32 < datendelphin> I would say we need to gather experience. Up to now
      exactly 0 people use it
18:32 < pnorman> datendelphin: if someone can't afford membership from a high
      income region (e.g. US), they should qualify. the text approved by the
      members is about people, not regions.
18:34 < SJFriedl> What if we just decided that it's mainly a judgement call by
      the MWG, anybody can apply, and we can probably tell from the application
      who'se serious and who's not.
18:34 < Zverik> I like the text, and suggest to postpone the abuse question
      until we get at least a dozen applications
18:34 < datendelphin> ok, then I am off on that point. Hm any ideas how we
      could elaborate on financial hardship?
18:34 < pnorman> datendelphin: can you stick up the text onto hackpad or some
      other collaberative editing platform?
18:34 < Zverik> (though some editing is required :)
18:34 < datendelphin> ah sure, good idea
18:35 < Zverik> hackpad will close in a few months. Etherpad is better.
18:35 < SJFriedl> how about: Financial Hardship = you merely claim you have a
      financial hardship, and offer commensurate service to the community.
      If it seems like we get a California Gold Rush of applications for fee
      waivership, then we re-evaluate?
18:35 < datendelphin>
18:36 < datendelphin> yes I think that would be best. So we may just remove
      that title entirely
18:37 < Zverik> or the section
18:38 < jonwit> Do we need to specify students not qualifying since by the very
      nature they don't have money 
18:38 < SJFriedl> When I think about this, the benefits of having a genuinely
      active / interested person involved in OSMF outweighs whatever loss of
      membership fee income.  Maybe.
18:38 < SJFriedl> we'd have to judge just how active/interested the person
      really is.
18:38 < pnorman> SJFriedl: membership fee income isn't as much a concern as governenance
18:38 < SJFriedl> active/interested people are the big win then.
18:38 < SJFriedl> especially in underserved areas.
18:39 < pnorman> The concern is carpetbagging (in the British English sense,
      not the American sense)
18:40 < datendelphin> yes, but we also need the membership fees to gain
      financial independence. It's always a tradeoff. But for now we
      deffinitely need more under the waiver program
18:41 < datendelphin> so lets focus on the other parts of the text.
18:41 < datendelphin> Contribute something else of value is the place where I
      feel I was inventing the most
18:41 < SJFriedl> maybe the idea is that everybody who at least plausibly
      qualifies will receive the waiver with suitable contribution at the time,
      but upon renewal request we revisit their previous year's history? What
      have they done? to decide whether they have contributed to OSMF
18:42 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: that is the idea, yeah
18:43 < jonwit> +1
18:44 < SJFriedl> there will certainly be those who either abuse the system, or
      don't really do anything as foundation members; not sure we can avoid
      that, and not sure how much that would cost in terms of requiring our
18:45 < datendelphin> do you feel that the text reflects this accurately, or
      should we improve it?
18:46 < jonwit> I think either you need to remove the median income or modify
      it to say something like "temporary loss of income or employment,
      unexpected medical expenses, etc"
18:47 < jonwit> That's just my opinion 
18:48 < datendelphin> yes but for some people 15 pounds is just too much given
      what they earn. So I would still opt to leave financial hardship standing
      as it is in the bullet item, Without further explanation later on
18:49 < SJFriedl> I think vagueness is in our favor here re: financial
      hardship.  "The MWG will consider the member's personal financial
      circumstances, as well as the comparative regional income of the area,
      when considering the application"
18:50 < datendelphin> That sounds good
18:50 < SJFriedl> I mean: I just wrecked my car and have to take the bus to
      work - could be part of a financial hardship that's not employment or
18:51 < jonwit> Good call 
18:52 < SJFriedl> After MWG has been granting fee waivers for a while, we'll
      have a much better idea what's real and what's not.
18:53 < SJFriedl> so we will surely revisit the whole program in (say) a year
18:53 < datendelphin> ok I have taken SJFriedls text
18:54 < datendelphin> Yes, let's revisit it in a year
18:54 < pnorman> I'd still like to do an editing pass at the text
18:54 < SJFriedl> make sure that British spellings are used throughout? :-)
18:55 < datendelphin> Sure, no need to hurry
18:56 < datendelphin> then let's move on to the forms
18:56 < SJFriedl> and the entire application is non-public, right? Just MWG and
      the board?
18:56 < datendelphin> yes, and the contribution as well, even though we
      encourage to make it public
18:57 < datendelphin> There are two forms which were google and which I have
      now copied to wordpress. They should look quite similar to their google
18:58 < pnorman> Both forms looked good, but might it be too soon to put up the
      2nd about inability yo pay?
18:58 < datendelphin> if you all agree, I will set the pages published
      afterwards, and replace the links to the google forms with links to those
18:59 < datendelphin> pnorman: that one is already live on google. And I think
      it must remain live because there was a time limit to implement the
      waiver program until 1.1.2016
18:59 < datendelphin> Zverik has access to the google form results
19:00 < SJFriedl> The only links I have to forms are Not Found
19:00 < datendelphin> this link? 
19:00 < datendelphin> You need to be logged in to view them
19:00 < SJFriedl> oh
19:00 < SJFriedl> you said that before
19:01 < datendelphin> I guess you don't have a login yet?
19:02 < jonwit> I have a login it's just been a few months since I used it :)
19:02 < SJFriedl> I don't know if I have a login there. Is this the same as
      regular OSM login?
19:03 < datendelphin> just out of curiosity. The pdfs do not open for all of you?
19:03 < pnorman> datendelphin: no, there is no existing waiver program
19:03 < SJFriedl> bad /bbox message in the PDFs
19:03 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: no, its special wordpress login.
19:04 < datendelphin> I just printed those pdfs from the browser. Interesting.
19:04 < pnorman> is the login URL
      (standard wordpress login URL)
19:04  * SJFriedl doesn't have a login
19:05 < datendelphin> I switched the two pages to published for now, so you can
      view it
19:06 < datendelphin> hmm where was the link to that form
19:06 < SJFriedl> Shouldn't the last item be required?  This form is *only*
      used for a fee waver?
19:06 < SJFriedl> that page links to
19:07 < datendelphin> here
19:08 < datendelphin> the last link on the page goes to a google form named
      "Unable to pay membership fees"
19:08 < pnorman> Let's just make the first one visible for now until we've had
      a chance to edit the text. I have no idea what the previous Google form
      was about, but a membership fee couldn't have been waived through it
19:09 < jonwit> Should there be a check box "I give permission for osmf to use
      my name in advertising"
19:10 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: I thikn so too. But it's the current state of
      the google form. I don't know the idea behind it
19:11 < datendelphin> ok, will set the second form back to draft
19:11 < pnorman> I suspect the link to the google form mentioning waiving was
      put up improperly
19:11 < SJFriedl> I'm into the WP site now, thank you
19:13 < jonwit> I'm on as well 
19:14 < datendelphin> pnorman: so we will remove the link. But it puts the
      board in a bit of an awkward position :)
19:15 < pnorman> How so?
19:17 < datendelphin> ok not so bad. It's only in the minutes "If the AGM
      accepts this proposal, then the board will take steps to implement it by
      the end of the 2014 calendar year." Nevermind then.
19:18 < pnorman> Well, the board took steps, but the problem implementing it is
      that far more people care about it being done then have been willing to
      help with the work, so this is the first time we've actually had any text
      to discuss
19:18 < SJFriedl> yay us?
19:19 < datendelphin> Should we move on? I still have an important topic, the
      osmf-talk list
19:20 < datendelphin> I made some lists and some grep / awk / sort magic to
      find out that we currently have 157 members on the list who are no longer
      osmf members (expired grace period)
19:21 < Zverik> tracking these by hand every month would be tiresome
19:21 < datendelphin> and there are 317 who should be on the list. But now
      comes the problem: I don't know how many of those have opted out of it!
19:22 < datendelphin> Yes it's tiresome, but should be doable. civicrm can
      generate nice lists from db queries
19:22 < jonwit> Is this a big problem.... are people not members spamming the
19:22 < datendelphin> and mailinglist software accepts mass add/removal
19:22 < pnorman> The problem is the opt-outs
19:23 < datendelphin> jonwit: yes there is the usual spam
19:23 < Zverik> I wonder if the mailman has logs
19:24 < datendelphin> pnorman: exactly. So I think I tracked the last additions
      back to about 1.1.15, so roughly two years
19:24 < pnorman> I would say to remove the 157 non-osmf members (ignoring any accounts which are sometimes on for administrative
      reasons). Then either ask about logs or add people who have joined since
19:24 < SJFriedl> should we send a note to the users in questino?
19:25 < SJFriedl> maybe this could be a reminder to renew?
19:25 < datendelphin> maybe we can add those, and ask a few months worth of
      members back if they were forgotten
19:25 < datendelphin> sure, we should include a reminder to renew with the
19:26 < datendelphin> and I think we should make a mail to the ml apologizing,
      after we added them of course
19:28 < datendelphin> so let's do it like pnorman proposed?
19:29 < jonwit> +1
19:30 < datendelphin> We still have things on our todo list, but I think we
      made some progress. Any other topic you would like to discuss before we
      end this meeting?
19:34 < datendelphin> So thank you for joining the MWG meeting.
19:34 < datendelphin> And have a nice day