Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-01-27
- _chrisfl: Chris Fleming
- cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
- Firefishy: Grant Slater
- miblon: Milo van der Linden
- mkl: Mikel Maron
- RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
- rweait: Richard Weait
- samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
- stevenfeldman: Steven Feldman
- toffehoff: Henk Hoff
- TomH: Tom Hughes
- twain47: Brian Quinion
- wonderchook: Kate Chapman
- zere: Matt Amos
- Review minutes of previous meeting 20 January 2011 Minutes
- Amended previous minutes re attendance
- Minutes proposed by chrisfl
- minutes seconded by miblon
- no objections - Minutes of 20 Jan 2011 accepted
- Agenda for today
- Budgeting process review.
- Tile layers scorecard
- Formalizing the working group.
- Communications WG request. Small addition to posting minutes needed.
- Budgeting process review.
- Review guidelines from miblon, woodpeck and wonderchook
- formalize SWG
- Those in attendance were invited by mkl to be formal members of the SWG. zere declined
- SWG meetings will be chaired. Chair may assign a board member or other surrogate to chair the meeting in their absence. Such delegation should be assigned in advance via SWG mailing list.
- meeting require attendance of >50% of the formal membership.
- Tile Layers Scorecard
- toffehoff to prepare tile scorecard for next meeting.
- Provide summary for CWG
- rweait to summarize this week.
- next meeting potentially 03 February 2011 @1500UTC, but subject to change based on agreement via SWG email list.
- meeting closed at 11:09 EST
(09:59:50 AM) rweait: *** Shall we start logging then? *** (10:00:00 AM) chrisfl: shoot (10:00:10 AM) miblon [~firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (10:00:14 AM) miblon: hi (10:00:21 AM) mkl: hiya (10:00:38 AM) miblon: he Henk! Good to see you here too! (10:00:39 AM) samlarsen1 [email@example.com] entered the room. (10:01:09 AM) mkl: just wrapping up another call (10:01:22 AM) toffehoff: Hi all. Finally could make it this time. (10:01:45 AM) rweait: Previous minutes http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-20 (10:02:26 AM) mkl: that one was short and sweet (10:02:31 AM) miblon: rweait, I made apologies for the previous meeting. Can this be fixed in the minutes ;-) (10:03:06 AM) mkl: after that, can we get a propose and second (10:03:07 AM) chrisfl: Previous minutes proposed (10:03:22 AM) chrisfl: (with fix) (10:03:42 AM) chrisfl: r/with/assuming/ (10:03:43 AM) rweait: miblon: Was your apology in advance of the meeting? (10:03:47 AM) stevenfeldman [~firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (10:04:16 AM) rweait: Ah there it is. Got it. (10:04:32 AM) mkl: can someone second (10:05:17 AM) mkl: hello? (10:05:27 AM) miblon: waiting for the fix (10:05:38 AM) stevenfeldman: hi there I have made it for my first strategic wg (10:05:41 AM) miblon: I will second (10:06:15 AM) mkl: welcome stevenfeldman (10:06:19 AM) stevenfeldman: thx (10:06:21 AM) mkl: thanks miblon (10:06:30 AM) mkl: so here's our agenda today (10:06:36 AM) mkl: - Budgeting process review. Expecting Milo to provide something. - Tile layers scorecard. Have been expecting Henk. We can re-assign if needed. - Formalizing the working group. Thread started by Richard. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2011-January/000203.html - Communications WG request. Small addition to posting minutes needed. (10:06:58 AM) mkl: a lot to work through today, so let's try to move quickly (10:07:21 AM) mkl: miblon, do you want to start with an update on the budgetting process (10:07:28 AM) miblon: mkl, ok (10:08:03 AM) miblon: Haven't recieved any input on list or mail. (10:08:25 AM) toffehoff: just send you some comments. (10:08:30 AM) mkl: we're talking about these docs: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bzg1tRnWFcA0NGQ2NmFkMzYtMmY2My00MGZhLTg3YTEtMzQzZTg0NWI3YTZm&hl=en (10:08:35 AM) toffehoff: bout 20 minutes ago (10:09:03 AM) miblon: toffehoff, I will check them now (10:10:39 AM) mkl: miblon: we have some discussion on the 13th on these ... has that been taking into account? (10:11:09 AM) miblon: Henks remarks have been posted to the doc as pending questions (10:11:18 AM) miblon: mkl, reviewin minuts from the 13th now (10:11:37 AM) toffehoff: The comments of Frederick has been taken into account as well? (10:11:57 AM) mkl: the osmf-swg-budgeting-guideline doc is for us to direct the process (10:12:24 AM) mkl: the budget template and planning template are for each wg to go through the process (10:12:54 AM) mkl: my suggestion is to at least at first, make what we present to the WG more narrative based (10:13:22 AM) mkl: ie present what's happening clearly, ask the specific questions we want answered, and allow some leyway in how the responses are produced (10:14:29 AM) chrisfl: Yes I agree, I think the headings are good. But we should allow more flexability in how things are presented. (10:14:51 AM) miblon: mkl, made some minor changes to the doc, (in yellow) for reviewing (10:15:29 AM) miblon: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10EpS-j6FSSXP9rjzHEWu6gVXVkKNm7M4BlFkRK3cKIA/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLG58rEH (10:15:41 AM) miblon: If anyone wants to edit, please let me know, I will provide access (10:16:08 AM) miblon: toffehoff, yes. The comments Frederik posted a couple of weeks ago on the list if those are the once you meant (10:16:22 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client). (10:16:28 AM) mkl: miblon: once we formalize membership, we could open up to everyone for editing/comment (10:16:36 AM) miblon: mkl, ok (10:16:44 AM) samlarsen1 [email@example.com] entered the room. (10:16:51 AM) toffehoff: miblon: yes (10:17:38 AM) mkl: we had a couple people committed to supporting miblon to work through this (10:18:01 AM) mkl: wonderchook and woodpeck if i remember (10:18:01 AM) miblon: toffehoff, then the answer is yes. The guidelines wheren't there before Frederik gave his comments and the templates are modified based upon his comment (10:18:21 AM) miblon: wonderchook, and woodpeck both gave feedback (10:18:21 AM) toffehoff: miblon: ok (10:18:26 AM) miblon: thank you for that (10:19:12 AM) mkl: miblon: do you have enough feedback to work through a quick revision? can anyone else assist too? (10:19:30 AM) miblon: mkl, perhaps it is good to move to formalization first then? After that we can continu or broaden the small "guideline projectgroup" (10:19:47 AM) miblon: mkl, let me check. I am in the document, will work through it quiclky now (10:19:52 AM) mkl: cool let's do that (10:20:31 AM) mkl: did everyone see rweait's email? (10:20:52 AM) rweait: miblon: can you make a read-only version of that file for the minutes? (10:21:01 AM) rweait: ONe that does not require a login? (10:21:03 AM) toffehoff: you mean http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2011-January/000203.html (10:21:12 AM) mkl: toffehoff: yes (10:21:18 AM) toffehoff: Read it. (10:21:26 AM) stevenfeldman: me too (10:22:06 AM) chrisfl: yup (10:22:11 AM) mkl: i really have no objection to this. i suggest we start this from next meeting (10:22:38 AM) miblon: rweait, I think it is readonly and doesn't require login. (10:22:56 AM) zere: might it make sense for SWG to go through and fill out the template? that then provides an example to follow as well as the other benefits of dogfooding? (10:23:03 AM) miblon: This link is marked as "public for the web" https://docs.google.com/document/d/10EpS-j6FSSXP9rjzHEWu6gVXVkKNm7M4BlFkRK3cKIA/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLG58rEH (10:23:35 AM) miblon: zere, sounds fine with me (10:23:37 AM) mkl: zere: good point (10:23:55 AM) toffehoff: +1 (10:24:41 AM) miblon: (5 anonymous users in the doc right now) (10:24:58 AM) toffehoff: One being me. (10:25:02 AM) mkl: cool. let's keep moving in the agenda, into formalization. (10:25:18 AM) Firefishy [~firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (10:25:26 AM) ***miblon wipes sweat of his forehead (10:25:31 AM) mkl: heh (10:26:01 AM) mkl: are you all happy with what rweait laid out? (10:26:16 AM) stevenfeldman: are we onto his mail now? (10:26:35 AM) mkl: yes (10:26:50 AM) miblon: toffehoff, example of sponsorpage: http://www.osgeo.org/content/sponsorship/sponsors.html (10:28:03 AM) toffehoff: miblon, thanks for the example. (10:28:06 AM) stevenfeldman: what are the criteria for being a "formal"member (10:28:25 AM) miblon: toffehoff, and this is how osgeo presents there financials. http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/2009_Finance_Review (10:28:29 AM) mkl: member of the foundation (10:28:41 AM) mkl: and regular participation (10:28:58 AM) stevenfeldman: so anyone who is foundation memebr can co opt themselves in (I guess that is what I did) (10:29:22 AM) stevenfeldman: :( not the participation bit :( (10:29:24 AM) wonderchook is now known as Guest1833 (10:29:24 AM) wonderchook [~email@example.com] entered the room. (10:30:05 AM) mkl: at the moment, we're open, so anyone can come in. after formalization, i suppose someone needs to request to join. or we'd recruit, if we needed more active participants (10:30:15 AM) rweait: I think that won't work in future. In future "and acceptance by 50%+1 of the the current SWG, or assignement by the board" perhaps? (10:30:38 AM) rweait: like mkl said. ^^ (10:30:48 AM) chrisfl: although I like a bit of openness, whwere people can feel free to "drop in" (10:31:09 AM) miblon: Request to join: Yes; close irc meetings; No. I think anyone should be able to "walk in" (10:31:14 AM) chrisfl: Regular dropins can quickly become formal members of the group? (10:31:20 AM) miblon: chrisfl, +1 (10:31:28 AM) mkl: +1 (10:31:45 AM) rweait: With the previously noted exception for anonymous participation. +1 (10:31:52 AM) RichardF: +1 (10:31:55 AM) toffehoff: +1 (10:31:56 AM) Guest1833 left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds). (10:31:56 AM) miblon: rweait, +1 (10:32:06 AM) mkl: cool (10:32:25 AM) mkl: well as the only formal member right now, i guess it's up to me to accept you all ;) (10:32:27 AM) stevenfeldman: baffled by +1 excuse newby (10:32:47 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: +1 just means "i agree" (10:32:49 AM) rweait: I move that mkl accept the current attendance of the group as "Members of the SWG" (10:32:56 AM) stevenfeldman: +1 :) (10:32:59 AM) mkl: anyone not want to be a member (10:33:08 AM) miblon: + 99/99 (10:33:16 AM) mkl: ok you guys are in :) (10:33:16 AM) toffehoff: pending they are also member of the foundation (10:33:25 AM) zere: rweait: what's the difference between a formal member and a "walk in"? in practical terms? (10:33:36 AM) stevenfeldman: voting? (10:33:37 AM) rweait: No voting rights? (10:33:43 AM) miblon: U heeft 15,00 GBP overgemaakt naar OpenStreetMap Foundation (firstname.lastname@example.org) (10:33:57 AM) mkl: i think zere means in the swg (10:34:05 AM) stevenfeldman: initiating a topic for discussion? (10:34:06 AM) rweait: but still welcome to speak (or at least respond ) (10:34:17 AM) mkl: committed to delivering (10:35:02 AM) zere: quite. it was suggested that formal membership is revoked after two unexcused absences, so it begs the question of what it is you'd actually be losing. (10:35:03 AM) miblon: I think everyone can vote, but only swg votes count. It is good if walkins can vote against given they provide good arguments the SWG can benefit from (10:35:39 AM) zere: from participation in other WGs i'd have to say there's not much voting. maybe i'm on the wrong WGs ;-) (10:35:42 AM) miblon: Vote: formal membership is revoked after two unexcused absences? (10:36:18 AM) stevenfeldman: +1 (10:36:50 AM) rweait: +1 (10:37:18 AM) mkl: zere: i think it's important to recognize your own commitment to participating, and for everyone else to be aware (10:37:20 AM) mkl: +1 (10:37:54 AM) samlarsen1: +1 (10:38:02 AM) chrisfl: +1 (10:38:11 AM) miblon: +1 (10:38:12 AM) rweait: expectation is that apologies in advance are accepted. (10:38:16 AM) mkl: we'll close off voting at 9:40 (10:38:19 AM) zere: awesome, then i'll have to give up my formal membership. i can't commit to being at these meetings regularly, i'm afraid. (10:38:32 AM) mkl: or 40 after (9:40 here) (10:38:40 AM) ***miblon has another vote pending (10:38:53 AM) toffehoff: I also wanted to propose another time for these meetings. (10:38:54 AM) rweait: zere: your insights will be welcomed when you are able to participate. (10:39:04 AM) zere: rweait: thanks :-) (10:39:56 AM) stevenfeldman: a different time/day would certainly help me (10:40:07 AM) miblon: vote closed (10:40:10 AM) miblon: Vote: Should the chair be in a meeting or provide replacement posted on [Strategic] in advance? (10:40:30 AM) stevenfeldman: replacement (10:40:36 AM) mkl: I think it should be either chair or Board member (10:40:49 AM) chrisfl: agree. (10:41:04 AM) rweait: and when they are not available not meeting? (10:41:16 AM) miblon: postpone? (10:41:31 AM) rweait: I think allowing a proxy is prefereable, even if we don't use it. (10:41:43 AM) stevenfeldman: what's difference between not meeting and postpone? (10:42:08 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: no difference in my eyes (10:42:14 AM) mkl: toffehoff: did board agree that WG can meet without board member present? (10:42:24 AM) zere: with other WGs it has generally been a policy that if the chair wouldn't be available they would nominate a stand-in. if the chair (or stand-in) were unexpectedly unavailable then someone would pick up that role. (10:43:07 AM) toffehoff: mkl: We did (10:44:25 AM) toffehoff: however, if that is more regular than incidental (no presence of board member), that's not what the board had in mind (to my recolection) (10:45:15 AM) miblon: Vote: Should the chair or a boardmmeber be in a meeting and if not nominate a stand in on [Strategic] in advance? (10:45:27 AM) mkl: +1 (10:45:30 AM) miblon: mmeber.. (10:45:30 AM) samlarsen1: +1 (10:45:30 AM) Firefishy left the room. (10:45:32 AM) miblon: +1 (10:45:39 AM) rweait: +1 (10:45:41 AM) chrisfl: +1 (10:45:51 AM) stevenfeldman: +1 (10:45:53 AM) toffehoff: +1 (10:46:59 AM) mkl: closing? (10:47:05 AM) rweait: clarification? (10:47:12 AM) mkl: yup (10:47:20 AM) mkl: rweait? (10:47:29 AM) rweait: chair should assign board member in advance so we know to expect chair absence? (10:47:39 AM) mkl: yes (10:47:53 AM) rweait: carry on. :-) (10:47:57 AM) zere: and if neither happens then the meeting doesn't happen? (10:48:05 AM) miblon: zere, yup (10:48:14 AM) rweait: zere: then we send out a search party. (10:48:17 AM) miblon: I mean, +1 (10:48:24 AM) mkl: ok so we agreed (10:48:26 AM) miblon: Can I post a new vote? (10:48:29 AM) mkl: check their gps uploads (10:48:30 AM) stevenfeldman: I thought we had just voted for a delegate if no chair or board? (10:48:59 AM) zere: but only in advance on the strategic list. i was asking about if that hadn't happened (10:49:22 AM) zere: i.e: if the meeting starts but the chair or proxy just doesn't turn up (10:49:32 AM) mkl: then postpone (10:49:43 AM) miblon: mkl, +1 (10:49:50 AM) stevenfeldman: ok (10:49:56 AM) miblon: Vote: What is the minimal ammount of formal members that need to attend for a meeting to be "official"? (10:50:18 AM) mkl: usually half + 1 (10:50:32 AM) toffehoff: Being? (10:50:40 AM) miblon: 2? (10:50:41 AM) zere: some other WGs tend to use 4 as the magic number (10:51:22 AM) chrisfl: possibly 1/3rd or 2/3rd's and at least 4? (10:51:30 AM) samlarsen1: does that include idlers (for duration of meeting) on irc? (10:51:35 AM) rweait: we're a little larger 1/2+1 (10:51:47 AM) toffehoff: If I look at the amount of people actively chatting, 4 or 5 is a good number. (10:51:52 AM) RichardF: samlarsen1: attendance and speaking are generally separate concepts! (10:52:02 AM) samlarsen1: ;) (10:52:05 AM) wonderchook: yeah, I'm here and reading haven't had input at the moment:) (10:52:11 AM) mkl: yea, should at least say hi RichardF :) (10:52:38 AM) miblon: Can we agree on what chrisfl proposes? 1/3rd or 2/3rd's and at least 4? (10:52:45 AM) toffehoff: how many formal members do we have now? (10:52:49 AM) miblon: 1 (10:52:49 AM) chrisfl: I've no problem with people only speaking up if they need to. (10:53:16 AM) mkl: keep it simple, just 4 for quorum (10:53:17 AM) rweait: 50% + 1 means we need 8 for a meeting. (10:53:35 AM) samlarsen1: 4 (10:53:42 AM) miblon: 4 (10:53:49 AM) chrisfl: I'm happy with 4 (10:53:51 AM) stevenfeldman left the room. (10:54:06 AM) toffehoff: If we say that formal members should normally attend. the 50% +1 is a good rule. (10:54:26 AM) toffehoff: If that is 8, then it needs to be 8..... (10:54:32 AM) stevenfeldman [~email@example.com] entered the room. (10:55:05 AM) toffehoff: What's the point in having formal members otherwise? (10:55:11 AM) samlarsen1: looking at past meeting - we have struggled to make 8 (10:55:17 AM) samlarsen1: meetings(s) (10:55:30 AM) stevenfeldman: 4 seems reasonable and review after a few months? (10:55:41 AM) toffehoff: 8 present, not actively participating (10:56:24 AM) stevenfeldman: Have to say bye now (10:56:33 AM) rweait: cheers steven (10:56:44 AM) stevenfeldman left the room. (10:56:51 AM) toffehoff: I find it rather strange to say that 4 is the minimum, when not an hour ago we commited ourselves in participating on a regular basis. (10:57:07 AM) rweait: Gotta be 8 or more. (10:57:16 AM) mkl: ok, i think we're batting around being present vs participating (10:57:26 AM) rweait: If many of us can't make it (say for SotM) then we reschedule. (10:57:43 AM) mkl: i suppose if we have trouble meeting quorum, we'd need to reduce membership (10:57:53 AM) miblon: Got to go. I am expected in Amsterdam at 17:30 which is an hour drive :-( luckily it is informal (10:58:05 AM) toffehoff: Cheers miblon (10:58:14 AM) mkl: yea we should wrap up (10:58:24 AM) chrisfl: Or there may be a face to face meeting say at SotM which not everyone would be able to make. (10:58:27 AM) toffehoff: One final question: can we move this meeting to another time? (10:58:40 AM) mkl: looks like we'll decide this next week (10:58:46 AM) mkl: on quorum (10:58:48 AM) rweait: toffehoff can we do that in email? (10:58:49 AM) miblon: toffehoff, can't drink to much it is the p o l i c e ;-) (10:58:50 AM) toffehoff: :-) (10:59:11 AM) mkl: toffehoff: can you send a doodle to the list? (10:59:13 AM) toffehoff: rweait: sure. (10:59:21 AM) rweait: mkl quick vote 4 vs 8 ? (10:59:22 AM) toffehoff: mkl: will do. (10:59:28 AM) toffehoff: 8 (10:59:30 AM) rweait: 8 (10:59:36 AM) toffehoff: that is: 50% + 1 (10:59:51 AM) rweait: toffehoff currently, yes. (10:59:53 AM) mkl: rounding up or down? :) (11:00:15 AM) mkl: ok, 50+1 (11:00:16 AM) miblon: No it is 5: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-01-13 (11:00:16 AM) RichardF: "a simple majority" i.e. over 50% (11:00:34 AM) mkl: yup (11:00:34 AM) toffehoff: RichardF +1 (11:00:40 AM) chrisfl: RicahrdF +1 (11:00:53 AM) miblon: RichardF, +1 (11:01:07 AM) zere: toffehoff: you know how it goes, though. volunteers can find it difficult to find the time, especially for a meeting in the middle of the working afternoon... (11:01:40 AM) mkl: can we quickly get the last two agenda items (11:01:42 AM) toffehoff: yes, that's my problem.... (11:02:05 AM) mkl: i think we've passed that one ... and we'll try to set a better time over email (11:02:19 AM) toffehoff: I'll send a doodle to the list. (11:02:32 AM) chrisfl: doodle sounds good (11:02:38 AM) mkl: tile scorecard: toffehoff, last was on your plate. can you still take this on, or needs reassign? (11:03:01 AM) toffehoff: Will have some time again this weekend. Can do for next meeting. (11:03:46 AM) mkl: cool (11:04:25 AM) mkl: finally, comm wg is asking for short meeting summary sent to firstname.lastname@example.org (11:04:30 AM) mkl: at the end of every meeting (11:04:34 AM) rweait: next meeting same./same, unless otherwise agreed by doodle? (11:04:53 AM) mkl: rweait: yes (11:04:58 AM) rweait: mkl: I'll do the CWG summary for this week. (11:05:13 AM) mkl: cool thx. we just need to keep remembering :) (11:05:22 AM) rweait: next meeting? (11:05:41 AM) mkl: rweait: yes not the same time next week, unless we agree otherwise on list (11:05:51 AM) toffehoff: +1 (11:06:04 AM) mkl: aob? close? (11:06:15 AM) rweait: sorry, yes or "not" (11:06:50 AM) toffehoff: Same time next week, unless we decide otherwise on the list. (11:07:02 AM) mkl: cool (11:07:18 AM) rweait: Thank you. Just finishing minutes. (11:07:20 AM) mkl: we can adjourn (11:07:27 AM) mkl: thx (11:07:27 AM) rweait: Move to close? (11:07:40 AM) toffehoff: please (11:08:16 AM) mkl: yes please (11:08:57 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client). (11:09:14 AM) rweait: *** end logging ***