Working Group Minutes/SWG 2010-12-02
- cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
- toffehoff: Henk Hoff
- samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
- chrisfl: Chris Fleming
- mkl: Mikel Maron
- TomH: Tom Hughes
- twain47: Brian Quinion
- rweait: Richard Weait
- Previous minutes accepted as amended. rweait proposed, chrisfl seconded, no objections.
Tile layers follow up discussion.
- mkl proposed a table to evaluate current and future tile layers against the tile policy guidelines as a sort of scorecard. It is to be community accessible and maintained.
- toffehoff volunteered to build a prototype of the tile layer scorecard in the OSM wiki.
OSMF Resources discussion
- DB has new upgrades in place and upcoming.
- Search (nominatim) has new hardware on the way.
- Routing is likely to get more attention in future and become an OSMF resource. The community, and TWG will select a routing solution SWG should be prepared to fund it once a spec is available.
OSMF mission discussion.
- chrisfl to draft a mission discussion document.
(10:02:28 AM) rweait: *** let's start a log, shall we? *** (10:02:59 AM) mkl: thanks richard (10:03:11 AM) chrisfl: No problem on the delay.... (10:03:44 AM) toffehoff: Ready when you all are. (10:03:44 AM) samlarsen1: ready when you are (10:03:46 AM) mkl: i woke at 530 here anyway! (10:03:58 AM) mkl: cool let's start (10:04:37 AM) mkl: during the board call last night we discussed the tile layers policy (10:05:12 AM) mkl: basically board is totally cool with this, it's straightforward (10:05:18 AM) mkl: the two bits of feedback were (10:05:42 AM) mkl: "Interesting" is an ambiguous word, but fine for now ... unless any problems arise (10:06:12 AM) mkl: and second, it wasn't clear how and to who tile requests would be made (10:06:35 AM) toffehoff: Link to the policy doc: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (10:06:43 AM) rweait: from my recollection, the requests, and the rest of it, would go to Technical Working Group. (10:06:51 AM) chrisfl: We discussed that they would go direct to the the Technical Working Group (10:07:07 AM) chrisfl: they will make an initial decision and implement (10:07:26 AM) chrisfl: We're not expecting lots of these kind of requests (10:07:32 AM) mkl: ok, so they are ok with this? cool (10:07:56 AM) mkl: guess it should just be made clear that email to TWG is what is required (10:07:57 AM) samlarsen1: agreed (10:08:07 AM) chrisfl: I'll let TomH confirm... but yes (10:08:07 AM) samlarsen1: it is in the notes at the bottom (10:08:18 AM) mkl: cool (10:08:31 AM) rweait: re: minutes. Can we have a look here? http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-25 (10:08:46 AM) rweait: Is this "enough" for minutes? (10:09:01 AM) rweait: and should we be "approving" preivous minutes? (10:09:05 AM) mkl: also, I'm suggesting that we start a table listing some current tile sources, measured against the criteria, to give an example of how this works in practice (10:09:16 AM) mkl: rweait: ah, sorry for breaking protocol! (10:09:30 AM) rweait: hey, I'm just asking. ;-) (10:09:45 AM) mkl: no you're right (10:10:05 AM) mkl: can we quickly review the miinutes, and get a proposal and a second? (10:10:23 AM) chrisfl: I'm happy with the minutes, we should probably include a link to the version of the Policy that we agreed during the meeting. (10:11:02 AM) rweait: chrisfl, will the link above do? (10:11:16 AM) samlarsen1: it was this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&oldid=563808 (10:13:09 AM) samlarsen1: but the current one (minor change) was ready by board (10:13:09 AM) chrisfl: Yes but probably to a version.... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&oldid=563808 (10:13:09 AM) chrisfl: user Matt did some cosmetic changes but worth recording exact version we were looking at :) (10:13:20 AM) rweait: I see that Matt added some of the technical requirement to the MUST column from the SHOULD column. I like the revisions. (10:15:59 AM) samlarsen1: yes current revision is better : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&direction=next&oldid=563832 but has 'reliable service' in both MUST & SHOULD (10:16:47 AM) mkl: should only be MUST (10:17:08 AM) mkl: or does that mean something different under SHOULD? (10:17:22 AM) toffehoff: For the minutes it may be good to link to the correct version. (10:17:23 AM) rweait: I've put the version in the previous minutes. Can we accept those, then adopt the changes today? (10:17:36 AM) rweait: And fix the duplication. :-) (10:17:52 AM) toffehoff: rweait: your reading my mind. (10:18:07 AM) mkl: ok before that ... we ok with the minutes? (10:18:19 AM) mkl: proposed? seconded? (10:18:36 AM) ***rweait proposes previous minutes as ammended. (10:18:41 AM) chrisfl: seconded (10:18:45 AM) mkl: ok! (10:18:54 AM) ***rweait but I can't spell amended. (10:18:58 AM) mkl: so on finalizing the guidelines (10:19:32 AM) mkl: i want to suggest that there be a table where tile layers are measured against the criteria, given a history of their placement on osm.org, etc (10:20:09 AM) mkl: this can be used for tracking tile layer requests, and TWG review (10:20:13 AM) mkl: sense? (10:20:23 AM) samlarsen1: agreed (10:20:39 AM) rweait: Potentially interesting, but also a burden (for somebody) (10:20:39 AM) toffehoff: You mean with table a page on the wiki? (10:20:50 AM) mkl: right (10:21:01 AM) mkl: yea, someone would need to start this (10:21:08 AM) chrisfl: I would worry about the work in maintaining it. But documenting the current setup isn't a bad idea. (10:21:33 AM) mkl: i can't imagine it's much work ... any tile layer reviewed by TWG or whatev (10:21:36 AM) toffehoff: Setting up a page with guidelines how to use it on top should work. (10:21:58 AM) rweait: can we minute who will set that up for next meeting? ;-) (10:22:13 AM) mkl: i second that (10:22:38 AM) ***rweait looks for volunteers... (10:22:40 AM) mkl: ok how about this ... we add this into additional notes (10:22:44 AM) toffehoff: I may have some time this wekend... (10:22:48 AM) toffehoff: weekend. (10:23:06 AM) mkl: we could also ask outside the group (10:23:15 AM) mkl: when emailing for feedback from the community (10:23:39 AM) toffehoff: The most work is probably in setting up the structure of the page... (10:24:05 AM) toffehoff: .... and then opening it up to the community. (10:24:10 AM) mkl: toffehoff ... i guess you have volunteered? :) (10:24:20 AM) toffehoff: guess i did ;-) (10:25:19 AM) mkl: ok so once that structure is in place, we can open up for discussion (10:25:25 AM) mkl: i can send that email out (10:25:58 AM) mkl: we could keep the proposal on the osm.org wiki until we complete that (10:26:09 AM) mkl: i would time bound the discussion (10:26:16 AM) mkl: sense? (10:26:33 AM) toffehoff: yes (10:26:37 AM) samlarsen1: sense (10:26:48 AM) chrisfl: sounds good (10:26:59 AM) mkl: cool (10:27:17 AM) mkl: so we move on? (10:27:31 AM) toffehoff: what's next? (10:27:36 AM) mkl: few things (10:27:47 AM) mkl: we could continue discussing foundation resources (10:28:15 AM) mkl: or look at new topics: osmf as financial umbrella; articles of association; mailing list policy (10:28:44 AM) mkl: where were things with the resources discussion? (10:29:20 AM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-11 (10:29:27 AM) mkl: doesn't look like it was discussed last week (10:29:32 AM) mkl: ah yes, thanks henk (10:29:35 AM) toffehoff: No, it wasn't (10:30:08 AM) chrisfl: it wasn't (10:31:20 AM) mkl: so just to summarize, we looked at current use of resources, started to come up with a basis to prioritize resources, and then discussed some ways to broad what the osmf currently supports (10:32:51 AM) mkl: and we didn't cover the other issue raised by mapsomatic, of how to choose which services (besides tiles) to integrate into osm.org (10:33:20 AM) chrisfl: We had a brief discussion, but didn't really reach any conclusions. (10:33:42 AM) mkl: i guess i see us working towards policy on this issue, and making a recommendation to the board perhaps (10:34:07 AM) chrisfl: We probably need to think about what kind of organization OSMF wants to be. (10:34:39 AM) chrisfl: this will then guide us in terms of what services we want to support. (10:34:44 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl: agree (10:35:39 AM) mkl: the idea of providing temporary hosting for innovative OSM-related projects seems like a small step from where we are now (10:35:45 AM) rweait: If OSMF is the db. then we're doing well on that. We also have tiles as a service to mappers. (10:36:07 AM) rweait: We have had search / nominatim on OSMF servers, but hasn't that fallen over? (10:36:08 AM) mkl: we also have dev server (10:36:26 AM) mkl: that's on mapquest servers now, i think? (10:36:30 AM) mkl: search (10:36:34 AM) rweait: search seems important to have under OSMF. (10:36:43 AM) rweait: and then perhaps routing as well? (10:37:04 AM) toffehoff: why routing? (10:37:19 AM) rweait: It seems a logical next step, but I could be wrong. (10:37:28 AM) TomH: search has been redirected to MQ while Brian rebuilds the search indexes (10:37:42 AM) TomH: but we are also in the midst of obtaining new hardward for the search machine (10:37:52 AM) mkl: ah ok (10:38:13 AM) mkl: just for example, what would it take to host routing? (10:38:22 AM) mkl: has anyone spec'd that out? (10:38:25 AM) TomH: well first up a usable routing engine (10:38:28 AM) chrisfl: You could argue that providing a complete mapping service is part of attracting new users to OSM and some of these will become editors. (10:38:32 AM) TomH: until we have that we can't spec the hardware (10:38:52 AM) TomH: or perhaps a better way to phrase that would be that we need to chose a routing engine to use (10:39:04 AM) TomH: and find somebody able to setup and maintain it (10:39:19 AM) rweait: I would argue that routing, by mappers, is an important QA tool to improve the DB. (10:39:44 AM) TomH: it is fully our (TWG) intention to add a routing server (10:40:03 AM) chrisfl: This is a good thing. (10:40:07 AM) toffehoff: It's good to know what the reason for providing a service is. (10:40:17 AM) toffehoff: routing for QA purposes is good. (10:40:36 AM) toffehoff: good for our data. (10:40:37 AM) mkl: foundation now has funds to support more hardware, at least (10:40:41 AM) rweait: What can SWG do for TWG on this? "Stay out of the way, and send money?" :-) (10:41:14 AM) toffehoff: the money is something practical. (10:41:29 AM) toffehoff: This should be handled by the board. (10:41:36 AM) mkl: rweait: like tile, come up with some policy on resources (10:41:36 AM) toffehoff: .... I think.... (10:41:50 AM) mkl: perhaps a lot of this is making what is implicit, explicit (10:42:02 AM) toffehoff: mkl: agree (10:42:14 AM) mkl: because it then would allow us to be more clear with the community, ourselves (10:42:23 AM) mkl: and donors, if it came to that (10:43:07 AM) chrisfl: seems fair to me (10:43:33 AM) toffehoff: misuse could be handled better as well. (10:44:08 AM) mkl: toffehoff: misuse of tiles? (10:44:23 AM) toffehoff: commercial companies using our tileserver (10:44:45 AM) toffehoff: seeing it as a 24/7 full-scale tile server (10:45:11 AM) mkl: yea, it would be good to see more documentation of actions taken, and why ... without adding extra burden to TWG (10:45:21 AM) rweait: we're at 45 minutes. (10:45:50 AM) mkl: perhaps something like a twitter account logging sysadmin actions (10:46:46 AM) mkl: rweait: right. so can we start to direct this discussion? are we ready to draft a strawman doc on this? (10:46:52 AM) rweait: I don't think we want to automatically embarrass every over-user by tweeting "$Company blocked from OSM for tile server abuse!!!1!" (10:47:25 AM) mkl: is that embarrassing? (10:47:33 AM) rweait: interim minutes. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-02 (10:47:43 AM) rweait: only for $Company. (10:47:45 AM) samlarsen1: maybe a list on OSMF wiki? (10:48:06 AM) mkl: perhaps we're ok with that? :) (10:48:11 AM) rweait: Are we looking for a strategic problem here? has anybody asked to tackle this? (10:48:26 AM) rweait: It seems like it's already handled. (10:48:32 AM) mkl: rweait: this started with question of mapsomatic (10:48:59 AM) toffehoff: the problem of mapsomatic itself has been resolved for now. (10:49:08 AM) rweait: OKay, so can OSMF and SWG serve as money launderer for sponsoring projects? (10:49:08 AM) toffehoff: hosting by FSF (i think) (10:49:36 AM) mkl: and that reveals there isn't clear guidelines on how we choose resources, and on whether we want to expand those resources (10:49:53 AM) chrisfl: But strategically we don't know how to handle it.... or future requests for resources (10:50:07 AM) mkl: i think henk adds in that if we are talking about resources, we also need to talk about misuse of resources (10:50:14 AM) TomH: as a matter of policy we have always refused to log blocks (10:50:34 AM) toffehoff: talking about resources: also about the intent of it's use. (10:50:34 AM) TomH: mostly all we know is an IP address anyway (10:50:41 AM) toffehoff: What do we what to accomplish (10:51:02 AM) TomH: and the are legal/data protection/privacy issues with logging IP addresses that have been blocked (10:51:08 AM) mkl: chrisfl said it ... how do we handle future requests? (10:51:08 AM) toffehoff: What is it intented for? eq: QA or a professionla service (10:51:17 AM) chrisfl: The documentation on misuse is okay? (10:51:44 AM) chrisfl: I would say definite yes to QA (10:51:45 AM) mkl: TomH: fair enough, was just throwing it out there (10:51:49 AM) toffehoff: We can document misuse, but we first have to define what misuse is. (10:52:06 AM) chrisfl: Profesional service on osm.org ; probably (10:52:28 AM) mkl: we're kidding ourselves if we don't think the tiles are used beyond QA, for instance (10:52:29 AM) chrisfl: Services external to osm - only at small scale (10:52:43 AM) mkl: yes, it's about scale (10:53:57 AM) mkl: so is it clear that defining and documenting resource allocation, and resource misuse, is a good thing for SWG to do? (10:54:53 AM) mkl: 5 minutes to go (10:55:53 AM) chrisfl: perhaps we need to put together a high level strategic plan/thoughts that we can then discuss (10:55:53 AM) rweait: to me that sounds like "operational" or "management" issues. (10:55:54 AM) mkl: and also, get into more detail on how osmf meets its mission (10:57:03 AM) rweait: should the mission really be anything other than, "Solve problems for mappers. Make mapping easier and more fun" ? (10:57:15 AM) toffehoff: Is someone willing to set up a discussion doc? (10:57:20 AM) mkl: sure ... but then how what does that mean for our activities? (10:57:24 AM) chrisfl: and recruit more mappers (10:57:56 AM) chrisfl: I'll try and start to put something together.... (10:57:59 AM) mkl: the mission is fine ... but then try applying that to hosting for mapsomatic, and you see we need more guidelines (10:58:06 AM) rweait: "make sure API is available." "plan to fund hardware growth" (10:58:42 AM) rweait: maposmatic is fine. I like those guys. Love the project. But "not OSMFs Problem." (10:58:56 AM) mkl: it's just an example (10:59:00 AM) rweait: understood. (10:59:14 AM) rweait: I don't want to seem heartless, to maposmaptic. (10:59:28 AM) mkl: sure, they've become our strawman :) (10:59:34 AM) mkl: because we love them (10:59:53 AM) mkl: ok, so what then ... how do we move? (11:00:06 AM) rweait: or in general. but that specialty rendering, is just one "consumer" We want to enable them by providing great data... (11:00:17 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl is putting something together for our next meeting? (11:00:42 AM) mkl: ok cool (11:00:50 AM) mkl: when's next meeting? (11:00:53 AM) chrisfl: Yes, I'll try and get something on the wiki over the weekend, so that we can have a think before then (11:00:53 AM) rweait: I should minute that. chrisfl: will this be mission discussion doc? (11:01:01 AM) chrisfl: Yes (11:01:04 AM) mkl: board meets in pisa next weekend (11:01:12 AM) mkl: so could be very timely (11:01:21 AM) rweait: Is this time next week okay for all? (11:01:43 AM) toffehoff: Fine with me. (11:01:51 AM) chrisfl: fine with me. (11:01:55 AM) samlarsen1: i can't make next thurs (11:02:06 AM) mkl: i *might* not be available, travelling (11:02:06 AM) toffehoff: mkl: you're already traveling by then? (11:02:22 AM) rweait: Is wednesday this time better? (11:02:44 AM) mkl: not for me (11:02:52 AM) toffehoff: this wednesday it would work. (11:03:01 AM) samlarsen1: is good for me (11:03:03 AM) mkl: and normally, that would stack before the weekly board meeting (11:03:24 AM) mkl: but next week, either is equally maybe-ish ... so fine by me (11:03:25 AM) samlarsen1: doodle pole? (11:04:04 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl: can you make wednesday? (11:04:10 AM) chrisfl: I can do wednesday (11:04:21 AM) rweait: 1500 UTC next wednesday? (11:04:32 AM) samlarsen1: I can do wednesday (11:04:34 AM) rweait: (one hour ago) (11:04:43 AM) toffehoff: OK. fine with me. (11:04:44 AM) mkl: 1 hour 4 minutes :) (11:04:51 AM) mkl: cool (11:04:51 AM) rweait: :-P (11:04:55 AM) mkl: thanks all (11:05:05 AM) mkl: we can close, logging off? (11:05:09 AM) chrisfl: cheers (11:05:13 AM) toffehoff: Bye all! (11:05:18 AM) samlarsen1: bye (11:05:30 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client). (11:05:45 AM) rweait: *** logging off ***