Working Group Minutes/MWG 2017-05-02
- Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
- Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
- Paul Norman (Stereo)
- Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
- Ilya Zverev (Zverik)
- E-Mail rejected as spam on email@example.com
- Member self service area
- Welcome message to new members
- Membership fee waiver program
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.
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 http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2017-02-01 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 participating. 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 http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership_Working_Group and the mwg@ list 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 broken 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 applications 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> https://etherpad.coredump.ch/p/mwgwaiver 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 attention. 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 medical 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 counterparts 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 forms 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> https://join.osmfoundation.org/wp-admin/ 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 https://join.osmfoundation.org/unable-to-pay-membership-fees/ 19:07 < datendelphin> here https://join.osmfoundation.org/alternative-payment-options/ 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 listserve? 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 @osmfoundation.org accounts which are sometimes on for administrative reasons). Then either ask about logs or add people who have joined since 2015 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 removal 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