Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-01-20


  • apmon_: Kai Kreuger
  • _chrisfl: Chris Fleming
  • cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
  • Firefishy: Grant Slater
  • RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
  • rweait: Richard Weait
  • TomH: Tom Hughes
  • twain47: Brian Quinion
  • zere: Matt Amos


  • miblon: Milo van der Linden


  • Review 13 January 2011 Minutes for adoption
    proposed by _chrisfl,
    seconded by RichardF
    no objections, minutes accepted.
  • Set next meeting date
    Thursday 27 Jan 2011 at 1500UTC
  • Move to adjourn as no board member was in attendance
    proposed by rweait
    seconded by RichardF
    no objections.
  • Meeting closed at 30 minutes past the hour.

IRC log

(10:01:28 AM) rweait: *** shall we start logging ? ***
(10:03:09 AM) apmon_: Is mkl going to join?
(10:04:01 AM) rweait: I just sent a reminder to the list. 
(10:04:52 AM) Firefishy [] entered the room.
(10:05:34 AM) rweait: Would anybody care to take a look at the previous minutes?
(10:07:14 AM) CGI024-firefishytest [] entered the room.
(10:07:30 AM) CGI024-firefishytest: works... kthxbye
(10:07:37 AM) CGI024-firefishytest left the room (quit: ).
(10:08:13 AM) _chrisfl [] entered the room.
(10:11:51 AM) _chrisfl left the room (quit: ).
(10:12:23 AM) apmon_: One point I haven't seen mention in the budget process is how the distinction between maintenance and growth is handled
(10:12:33 AM) _chrisfl [] entered the room.
(10:12:44 AM) _chrisfl: hi
(10:13:16 AM) apmon_: While it is fairly clear how the maintenance part would work, i.e. budgeting for keeping everything running as before. Each of the work groups should have a fairly good idea about that
(10:13:46 AM) apmon_: but it isn't so clear who would initiate an expansion of the role a working group would take on, which might need considerable more funds
(10:13:51 AM) rweait: apmon_ which WGs "run" anything? Just TWG, right?
(10:14:15 AM) apmon_: Each WG "runs" something
(10:14:36 AM) rweait: SotM too, I guess.  
(10:15:02 AM) apmon_: It is the clearest for TWG, but the e.g. the DWG might need an anual supply of baseball bats...
(10:16:13 AM) apmon_: similar the LWG might need some amount of funds for legal advice for its current work. Or perhaps only much smaller expenses.
(10:16:41 AM) RichardF: it's up to the WG in question to put the case for their funds. There's really no point trying to second-guess them here on the basis of no data whatsoever
(10:17:23 AM) apmon_: But my question is more about expansion. For example could the Board or SWG go to TWG and say we want to compete with google maps and need a super duper tile server farm. (Which is clearly not in TWGs maintanance budget)
(10:18:01 AM) apmon_: Or who would initiate the idea of expanding to other new services. E.g. routing, hosting QA tools, ...
(10:18:02 AM) rweait: Are we going to HAVE this meeting today or not?  If so, let's review the previous minutes. 
(10:18:45 AM) rweait: anybody to propose and second them?
(10:19:00 AM) rweait:
(10:19:16 AM) _chrisfl: proposed
(10:19:30 AM) RichardF: seconded
(10:19:41 AM) rweait: Any objections?
(10:20:30 AM) rweait: The previous minutes are accepted. 
(10:20:40 AM) rweait: Shall we set a time date for next meeting?  
(10:20:56 AM) rweait: same:same okay for those in attendance?
(10:21:04 AM) _chrisfl: same works for me
(10:21:19 AM) rweait: That would be Thursday 27 Jan 2011 at 1500UTC
(10:21:52 AM) apmon_: RichardF: sure day-to-day funds are clearly best left to the individual WG, but are global decisions of the scope too?
(10:25:19 AM) rweait: Okay from previous minutes we have unaddressed items.  from 06 Jan agenda was: 
(10:25:26 AM) rweait: * Spending Policy  * Publish and act on tile policy. Tile layers scorecard.  * SWG Mission and OSMF Mission  * Clarity on OSMF Resources and Priorities  * Formalize the working group 
(10:25:45 AM) rweait: Tile policy is in-progress, 
(10:26:00 AM) rweait: Spending policy  / budget is in progress
(10:26:21 AM) rweait: \we have outsttanding deliverables on both of those from members who are not present at the momoent.
(10:27:07 AM) rweait: Can we start work on another item?  Should we start on something else, or do we adjourn, as we don't have a board member in attendance?
(10:29:28 AM) rweait: Right.  So, as SWG has not addressed "formalize the working group" and as we have no board member in attendance, not direction from a board member to continue without them,I move that we adjourn intil next week.
(10:29:33 AM) rweait: seconds?
(10:29:34 AM) RichardF: seconded
(10:29:39 AM) rweait: objections?
(10:30:14 AM) rweait: adjourned. 
(10:30:21 AM) rweait: ** log closed. ***