Working Group Minutes/MWG 2018-03-02


  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Ilya Zverev (Zverik)
  • Mohamat Lamine (Lamine_Ndiaye)
  • Paul Norman (pnorman)
  • Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
  • Joost Schouppe (joostschouppe)

Open issues

  • E-Mail rejected as spam on
  • Member self service area
  • Membership fee waiver program
  • Missing membership renewal reminder mails

Minutes of last meeting

unanimously accepted

OSMF membership badge on

Proposal: set up a link from Civicrm to OSMF members will then have a checkbox on their profile page. If they check it, their public profile will show their membership to OSMF. When membership expires, the badge should disappear. Datendelphin will take lead on development.

Missing membership renewal reminder mails Something goes wrong within civiCRM, no message is generated. Bug might be the software or our setup civiCRM is hosted on the server SJFriedl proposes to try and identify the problem. Datendelphin will support. In theory, we do not need OWG, because more rights are not necessary for a first analysis.

Membership waiver

A draft form exists, but it has not been finalized. Pnorman will list issues with the current draft. We need to document some procedures. Joost will write a draft. > Fill in the form. Check if they are from a country where you can't use paypal (list from paypal). Check account for the defined requierements (active mapper as defined here: Send message to account to confirm it's the applier's (write out message to use for that)


21:02 < jonwit> afternoon everyone!
21:02 < datendelphin> hi jonwit :)
21:02  * SJFriedl is Steve Friedl, Southern California USA
21:02 < SJFriedl> hiho all
21:03 < jonwit> jonathan witcoski from washington dc USA
21:04 < datendelphin> hi joostschouppe 
21:04 < joostschouppe> hi!
21:05 < datendelphin> Should we start?
21:07 < jonwit> 8 people filled out the doodle and there are 5 here
21:08 < SJFriedl> I believe heather fileld out the doodle but we knew she wouldn't be here, right?
21:08 < SJFriedl> *filled
21:08 < datendelphin> I count 4?
21:09 < SJFriedl> I see 5 - are you counting yourself?
21:09 < datendelphin> I think Paul and mohamet are missing
21:10 < datendelphin> yes, I see datendelphin jonwit SJFriedl and joostschouppe 
21:11 < jonwit> paul, heather and Guillaume indicated they were not available so i think we have everyone
21:12 < datendelphin> paul as well? missed that
21:12 < datendelphin> ok, so let's start anyway. First item would be the minutes of the last meeting
21:13 < joostschouppe> looks good to me
21:13 < pnorman> Sorry, forgot to set a notification
21:13 < SJFriedl> as it does to me.
21:13 < SJFriedl> Hi Paul
21:13 < jonwit> looks fine for me, hello paul
21:14 < datendelphin> hi pnorman, no problem. are just voting on the minutes, so just started
21:14 < datendelphin> ok so minutes are unanimously accepted.
21:15 < datendelphin> Second topic would be: showing a user is a member of the OSMF on the website
21:15 < datendelphin> As I mentioned,  Guillaume and me did play around with civicrm at the hackweekend in Karlsruhe
21:16 < datendelphin> we found a rest api for civicrm, and we managed to export a list of OSM user names from the member registry.
21:17 < datendelphin> We also wrote with TomH and he thought it should be managable to import such a list on the website server.
21:17 < jonwit> Excellent! Is it accurate?
21:17 < SJFriedl> does this mean it would have to be a regular import-type process? Is this something that can be automated so it's mostly hands off?
21:18 < pnorman> Do we need to worry about verification that someone doesn't list another's username? Do we have development resources internally for the rails port work, and tieing them together, or will the development community be taking it on?
21:18 < datendelphin> Yes I would say it must be automatic. cron job or something. Would be up to the OWG
21:18 < SJFriedl> every time I see OWG I think people are saying OMG :-)
21:19 < datendelphin> I want to make it opt-in. So smuggling in a wrong user name should just activate the opt-in check box for that user
21:20 < SJFriedl> so then it's the logical AND of the imported username *plus* the opt-in from the user. When the user falls off OSMF membership it automatically disables
21:20 < datendelphin> I am not sure yet about the rails port. I did not have a look yet
21:21 < datendelphin> I will of course not object someone else to develop this.
21:21 < pnorman> I can take on writing an issue for the website, but won't be able to do any development work on it
21:22 < datendelphin> That would be nice
21:23 < datendelphin> and to SJFriedl question, yes that is how I would envision it.
21:24 < pnorman> So, checkbox shown to OSMF members who have given their OSM username, and if checkbox is checked and they are currently a member it shows on their profile. Do we want to distinguish between associate members and regular members?
21:24 < SJFriedl> tthat sounds like volunteering for making it higher maintenance
21:25 < SJFriedl> in practice, how does membersihp type *actually* make any differences to anybody?
21:25 < SJFriedl> it's related to the UK Companies Act, or something?
21:25 < datendelphin> I think we should not distinguish. To show that we want to make thos two types as similar as possible
21:26 < datendelphin> Yes it has to do with the UK Companies Act. Those manes and addresses are public to a ceartain degree
21:26 < SJFriedl> you can always get more fine grained. "I want it it to show that I'm on the MWG" "... on the board", etc.
21:27 < datendelphin> ok, so we agree on this plan?
21:27 < pnorman> k, I'll write it up today
21:27 < joostschouppe> I think it's great
21:27 < SJFriedl> it's a binary item: you show as OSMF member or not (with opt-in)
21:28 < joostschouppe> i've tried to summarize on the etherpad; fix if I missed the point somewere. So detendelphin you're taking the lead in actually making this thing then?
21:28 < pnorman> Link to the etherpad?
21:28 < joostschouppe> (sorry, not good at spelling today)
21:28 < joostschouppe>
21:28 < datendelphin> Yes. And I think the summary you wrote is good
21:29 < datendelphin> ok, lets move on to the next topic, the missing reminder mails?
21:31 < datendelphin> So I filed an issue with OWG
21:31 < datendelphin> and shared a few examples with TomH. Unfortunately, he was not able to see any trace of those examples in the log files.
21:32 < SJFriedl> but the belief is that they are not leaving civicrm ?
21:32 < datendelphin> Now I am completely stumped. CiviCRM should send those reminders automatically, and it does so for most.
21:32 < pnorman> Should we bring in some external CiviCRM expertise?
21:32 < datendelphin> But for a non negligible amount of messages, they are not sent.
21:33 < datendelphin> Yes it looks like they are never leaving CiviCRM.
21:33 < datendelphin> Yes I would like to bring in external expertise
21:33 < SJFriedl> well that's a civicrm thing. Do we have any kind of tech support with them?
21:33 < pnorman> there's
21:35 < datendelphin> But I guess taht costs?
21:36 < datendelphin> Do we have to ask for the covering of those costs first?
21:36 < pnorman> There's about 40 partners who offer CiviCRM + WordPress support in English. Perhaps we should write up the problem, identify some which seem to offer this type of support, and email them asking for an estimate. And note on the operations issue that we're looking at having a consultant look at the CiviCRM side
21:36 < pnorman> We're a "supporting member" with CiviCRM which does get us some stuff (not sure what)
21:36 < jonwit> do we have a list of emails/ users that are not getting emails?
21:37 < SJFriedl> I don't believe I actually understand the relationship between OSMF and CivicRM: is this a cloud offering? do we run it ourselves? etc.
21:37 < pnorman> We have a budget of 1000 GBP
21:38 < datendelphin> jonwit: civiCRM logs the mails sent. So I found more examples by picking members at random, looking in the log and detecting missing reminders in said log
21:38 < pnorman> CiviCRM is a piece of software, CiviCRM LLC is a company. The software is a WordPress plugin.
21:38 < pnorman> datendelphin: Are the missing emails in the civicrm log?
21:38 < datendelphin> and we run Wordpress and civiCRM ourselves
21:38 < SJFriedl> ah thank you.
21:39 < datendelphin> no, they do not appear in this civiCRM internal log
21:39 < jonwit> So from the discussion it sounds like we have a few examples of individuals and you sent that list already to the OWG and they can check the log
21:40 < SJFriedl> who has hands-on internal support for civicrm, who touches the hardware, etc. ? anybody here? or ops working group?
21:40 < pnorman> OWG doesn't have anything to do with it at this point, it's believed the problem is in CiviCRM which isn't an ops problem.
21:40 < datendelphin> yes, indeed
21:40 < pnorman> It's either a bug in CiviCRM, how we have it set up, or how we're using it.
21:41 < SJFriedl> where is this hosted? our gear? some cloud VM or something?
21:41 < pnorman> the machine, which is on our hardware
21:42 < jonwit> Who has the power to send a test email to one of the users who is not getting an email? someone in OWG?
21:42 < SJFriedl> do we have the power to do everything we need without asking anybody else for permission?
21:42 < pnorman> We need nothing from the OWG right now.
21:43 < SJFriedl> This looks like it's up my alley. I have fairly good email chops and - with suitable access - can probably sort this all out.  Not sure how that happens.
21:43 < datendelphin> jonwit: we can send mail from civiCRM at any time through the user interface
21:44 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: I don't think it is a mail problem. As stated, for some reason, civicrm does not even generate the message
21:44 < datendelphin> the problem is internal to civiCRM, no use in meddling with a mail server
21:44 < SJFriedl> Yah, I understand. This sounds like something I can probably figure out in civicrm. 
21:45 < jonwit> So for so many questions datendelphin I am glad you are on top of it
21:45 < SJFriedl> it's open source, I can poke around, do tests, look at logs, etc.
21:46 < SJFriedl> I have a login to civicrm; I'll start poking around on a readonly basis to learn the lay of the land. 
21:47 < datendelphin> That sounds like an option, what do you think, pnorman?
21:47 < pnorman> Sure, if we can fix it internally or at least narrow down when it happens that would be good
21:47 < SJFriedl> Basically I can do some research and get up to speed. That may suggest next steps for me or for somebody.
21:47 < datendelphin> and of course we have to ask OWG for the access.
21:47 < SJFriedl> Oh, ok.
21:47 < pnorman> What access do we need from the OWG?
21:48 < datendelphin> ok, maybe not. But when debugging, I usually like to put in some printf's or similar, and that can probably not be done from the civiCRM side
21:49 < SJFriedl> Yes, of course. That would be the later step once I have a handle on this.
21:49 < SJFriedl> for now: just whatever I can learn about civicrm.
21:49 < datendelphin> ok, so we start as it is, and you can discuss later steps in the issue
21:50 < datendelphin> I can show you the log where you see if tha mail was sent or not
21:50 < SJFriedl> that will help me, yes.
21:50 < Zverik> can we just ask them to look in the logs for mailing errors?
21:50 < SJFriedl> what service are we using for outbound delivery? just direct to MX from a mail server? some reay service?
21:50 < SJFriedl> *relay
21:50 < datendelphin> Zverik: that was already done. See the discussion above
21:51 < Zverik> ah, sorry
21:51 < jonwit> its ok zverik i asked the same question
21:51 < SJFriedl> who are civicrm admins around here?
21:52 < datendelphin> I am
21:52 < jonwit> So in summary SJFreidl and datendelphin have volunteered to work on this issue. 
21:52 < SJFriedl> Yes I have.
21:53 < datendelphin> yes
21:53 < SJFriedl> we can take the details offline later
21:53 < datendelphin> OK, any other business?
21:54 < joostschouppe> I tried to summarise again, but don't really understand it completely
21:54 < joostschouppe> On the membership waiver. Did anyone apply yet? 
21:54 < pnorman> We need to finalize the form and check that the form works before publishing it
21:55 < joostschouppe> OK. Who's taking the lead on that?
21:55 < pnorman> I guess I can, I noticed most of the issues last time.
21:55 < datendelphin> oh, we didn't do that?
21:55 < datendelphin> sorry, lost track of that
21:56 < jonwit> It didn't cross my mind we needed to create a form. I can assist if you need any help
21:56 < datendelphin> I think I tested the form, but I don't know what wtill needs tweaking
21:56 < datendelphin> s/wtill/still/
21:56 < pnorman> When I looked at it I identified typos, we were collecting irrelevant information, and not collecting all the information we needed
21:57 < joostschouppe> is there any way I can contribute to this?
21:58 < pnorman> We also need to identify the procedures, including how we verify that someone who has applied for a fee waiver actually owns the OSM account they claimed. Normally that doesn't really matter, but for fee waivers, it does.
21:59 < joostschouppe> We would just send a message to that account, if I remember correctly
21:59 < pnorman> Is this documented in our procedures?
21:59 < joostschouppe> are there documented procedures? :) (sorry, I'm still very new here)
21:59 < datendelphin> well we lack a document. Good time to start one.
22:00 < pnorman> I don't think we've written any, which is another thing we need before going public
22:00 < datendelphin> quite reasonable
22:00 < joostschouppe> the text the board approved was already pretty specific, no?
22:00 < SJFriedl> do we have a place in wordpress to park internal procedures (for us) that are not visible to the public?
22:00 < SJFriedl> or is this considered low-transparency and therefor bad?
22:01 < pnorman> We should be documenting something like that on an internal wiki, but there's no need for the procedures to be private
22:01 < datendelphin> yes, but that detail about verificatio is only in our minutes yet. Makes sense to have a separate document for the procedure
22:02 < joostschouppe> So. Fill in the form. Check if they are from a country where you can't use paypall. Check account for the defined requierement. Send message to account to confirm it's the applier's.
22:02 < pnorman> How about this. I go over the form, identify issues. SJFriedl starts procedures on what we do after someone submits the form. We make any form changes needed, then test it.
22:03 < SJFriedl> I think I've just been voluntold :-)
22:03 < datendelphin> yes. We can do that by mail, no need to wait until the next meeting
22:03 < datendelphin> didn't you mean joostschouppe?
22:03 < joostschouppe> Ah, ok, so there is no specific issue tracker for this?
22:04 < pnorman> Or someone else ;) I just don't want to take on both the form and procedures
22:04 < datendelphin> Well our issue tracker is currently the Open Issues paragraph on top of every minutes
22:04 < joostschouppe> I'm willing to voluntold myself on the procedure :)
22:04 < SJFriedl> +1 :-)
22:05 < joostschouppe> But I'll run by datendelphin to check for nonsense? (because I don't know the regular procedures very well)
22:05 < pnorman> We don't have any procedures for normal applications because CiviCRM takes care of them
22:06 < joostschouppe> Oh, ok, so a readbale text on what I said above is basically it, right?
22:06 < joostschouppe> Or am I missing something essential?
22:06 -!- jonwit [~oftc-webi@2601:141:100:3746:b04c:8b98:7655:b382] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
22:06 < pnorman> Yes - verification that they meet the CT criteria for "active mapper"
22:06 < joostschouppe> OK
22:06 < pnorman> Also we need text for what we're sending them by user message
22:07 < joostschouppe> what are CT criteria?
22:07 < datendelphin> contributor terms
22:08 < pnorman> and "active contributor" under section 3
22:09 < datendelphin> ok, that's it? Or anything else I missed?
22:09 < pnorman> (ignoring the request to vote and valid email part, since those are specific to the vote stuff)
22:09 < pnorman> I think that's it
22:09 < Zverik> can I propose AOB item?
22:10 < joostschouppe> alright. i have no idea how to check the paypall requierement btw
22:10 < datendelphin> sure Zverik, go ahead
22:10 < pnorman> We have a country list
22:10 < Zverik> this:
22:10 < pnorman> What do you want the MWG to do about it?
22:11 < SJFriedl> transfer the money to *our* budget
22:11 < SJFriedl> :-)
22:11 < Zverik> I don't know how to test it, and we probably should push it to OWG as a working group, not me individually. Recurring donations is a long-standing topic
22:12 < Zverik> Or call for somebody who can help finalize this
22:12 < joostschouppe> we actually had someone ask during this meeting
22:12 < pnorman> Doesn't really seem like an operations issue, but it needs testing and figuring out how to list recurring donations
22:14 < joostschouppe> so who can do testing then?
22:15 < Zverik> where could we post this to find a person who knows how to test paypal stuff?
22:15  * pnorman isn't sure
22:15 < datendelphin> the talk mailinglist?
22:18 < datendelphin> I mean it is a good idea. But I agree with pnorman it is not really at the core of "membership"
22:19 < Zverik> okay, I'll see what I can do
22:19 < datendelphin> well, lets list it under AOB
22:20 < joostschouppe> is there a WG where the fit would be better?
22:20 < datendelphin> then maybe it draws attention
22:21 < datendelphin> ok, so any further other business?
22:24 < datendelphin> then Thanks to joostschouppe for making the minutes, and to everyone for participation
22:24 < datendelphin> I will organize another meeting shortly to welcome Heather
22:25 < joostschouppe> draft minutes! :)
22:25 < joostschouppe> thanks and see you soon
22:28 < Lamine_Ndiaye> hello all
22:28 < SJFriedl> just in time to say goodbye to everybody! Meeting finished a coupla minutes ago.
22:28 < SJFriedl> welcome!
22:29 < pnorman> fyi,
22:29 < Lamine_Ndiaye> my apologies for this delay my nesting have detained me