Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-02-18


IRC Name Present Apologies
_chrisfl Chris Fleming y
cmarqu Colin Marquardt
Firefishy Grant Slater y
miblon Milo van der Linden
mkl Mikel Maron y
RichardF Richard Fairhurst y
rweait Richard Weait y
samlarsen1 Sam Larsen y
stevenfeldman Steven Feldman y
toffehoff Henk Hoff y
TomH Tom Hughes
twain47 Brian Quinion
wonderchook Kate Chapman y
Also attending
IRC handle Name
zere Matt Amos
filbertkm Katie Filbert
Eugene Eugene Usvitsky

Minutes (draft)

  • proposed: Sam Larsen
  • seconded: Richard Weait
  • No objections. Minutes accepted.
  • Budget discussion
  • Steven Feldman and Kate Chapman to refer proposal to board for approval.
  • Feedback from board on Tiles
  • defer for next meeting after some discussion of clarity of " Non-commercial services are preferred. "
  • Attendance issues
  • one member with two consecutive leaves without permission and several absent without permission today. For discussion next time.

IRC log

(11:00:28 AM) rweait: ** Start logging **
(11:00:45 AM) mkl: greets all ... who's here?
(11:00:49 AM) rweait1: ping
(11:00:50 AM) samlarsen1: hi
(11:01:46 AM) mkl: ping twain47 _chrisfl cmarqu Firefishy RichardF TomH wonderchook zere
(11:01:51 AM) rweait1: Shall we start with the previous minutes, while the stragglers roll in?
(11:01:56 AM) mkl: sure
(11:01:58 AM) _chrisfl: hi
(11:02:09 AM) stevenfeldman: hi I am in now
(11:02:14 AM) rweait1: For approval:
(11:02:16 AM) RichardF: arternoon
(11:03:31 AM) wonderchook: hi yes I'm here
(11:04:03 AM) mkl: proposal of minutes anyone?
(11:04:05 AM) samlarsen1: I propose minutes
(11:04:11 AM) mkl: thx
(11:04:35 AM) The account has disconnected and you are no longer in this chat. You will be automatically rejoined in the chat when the account reconnects.
(11:04:55 AM) The topic for #osm-strategic is: OpenStreetMap Strategic Discussion
(11:05:04 AM) mkl: announced agenda today: budget, wikimapia, routing discussion
(11:05:19 AM) mkl: also need to add, some feedback from board on tiles policy
(11:05:45 AM) mkl: but we should focus on budget
(11:06:13 AM) mkl: 2nd on the minutes? and then we can start w/ stevenfeldman and wonderchook on the budget docs
(11:06:24 AM) stevenfeldman: 2nd
(11:06:24 AM) rweait1: I'd like to revise the minutes.
(11:06:40 AM) mkl: ok what on?
(11:06:41 AM) rweait1: Tile layer was not referred to CWg, but to Board for approval.  
(11:06:59 AM) rweait1: So I'd like to amend and second.
(11:07:13 AM) mkl: Sure, we decided that after the meeting, but fair enough
(11:07:39 AM) Eugene [~eugene@] entered the room.
(11:07:52 AM) mkl: So let's start on Budget
(11:08:01 AM) samlarsen1: apologies from Henk
(11:08:24 AM) stevenfeldman: has everyon seen links to 3 docs from wonderchook ?
(11:08:46 AM) mkl: links are in this mail to strategic:
(11:09:38 AM) stevenfeldman: shall we start with the request for proposals?
(11:10:33 AM) mkl: this seems pretty clear
(11:10:49 AM) mkl: agreed we may want to go with a shorter time frame to start
(11:11:15 AM) stevenfeldman: does OSM have a formal budgetting cycle?
(11:11:44 AM) mkl: no
(11:12:33 AM) stevenfeldman: shall we change cycle to say 6 months and then as we see how it works and possibly budgetting of foundation develops we can align
(11:12:58 AM) Firefishy: TWG plans upto 6 month ahead timeframe. For us things are too dynamic to plan further.
(11:13:09 AM) rweait1: I think these forms and this process make sense for new, outside projects, but it looks too heavy for Working Groups. 
(11:14:22 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1 :  this is only needed if the project needs money to deliver
(11:15:04 AM) rweait1: stevenfeldman: perhaps with the caveat, "...and if the WG aren't already using another similar process."
(11:15:06 AM) _chrisfl: I think we can also suggest that they are just "guidelines" and that projects are welcome to submit in whatever format they think is appropriate, 
(11:15:18 AM) _chrisfl: s/projects/working group/
(11:16:14 AM) mkl: Sure, as long as the questions are answered its fine. Only group currently doing anything like this is TWG.
(11:16:16 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1  and chrisfl both suggestions make sense but we would need similar content to what I have outlined I think
(11:17:00 AM) _chrisfl: yes, I agree about conternt
(11:18:29 AM) stevenfeldman: i have amended to add "or in a similar alternative format"
(11:19:49 AM) mkl: any more thoughts, or are we happy with these?
(11:19:56 AM) stevenfeldman: how do people feel about the section on ownership?
(11:20:14 AM) mkl: next step would be to get these to Board to approve, and then to working groups
(11:20:57 AM) stevenfeldman: do we approve then?
(11:21:12 AM) rweait1: can we agree that the preference is that proposals / etc be public and on the wiki.
(11:21:30 AM) samlarsen1: rweait1 +1
(11:21:33 AM) mkl: i think ownership makes sense ... the chair or board member is responsible, even if they don't do everything
(11:21:39 AM) filbertkm [] entered the room.
(11:21:50 AM) mkl: +1
(11:22:29 AM) samlarsen1: ownership +1
(11:22:42 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1 agree on public but we will need to make clear that osmf board is making the decisions or we are going to find ourselves going down a voting route on everything which may paralyse the process
(11:23:09 AM) rweait1: stevenfeldman:  anybody who votes can pay.
(11:23:40 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1 sounds like a boston tea party in reverse :)
(11:24:06 AM) rweait1: stevenfeldman: nothing wrong with clarity on where the decision originates, but I like the transparency of public documents as a default.
(11:24:41 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1: do you want to tweak the wording in that sectionn?
(11:24:48 AM) rweait1: Perhaps not for everything.  The litigation fund amount will have to be kept to a limited group.
(11:26:43 AM) stevenfeldman: Are we done on this? Who does what next?
(11:27:15 AM) mkl: maybe we should take a moment to look at the forms
(11:27:49 AM) mkl: after we're happy, could you and wonderchook email Board for discussion
(11:27:57 AM) rweait1: perhaps tweak them in to a wiki template at some point.
(11:27:57 AM) stevenfeldman: over to wonderchook
(11:28:19 AM) wonderchook: rweait1: yes was thinking wiki once we liked it
(11:28:23 AM) Firefishy: 'The membership was polled about how the Foundation's income should be spent and we received a mandate to spend 60% of income on hardware, 20% on promotion and 20% on legal matters.' -
(11:28:29 AM) Firefishy:
(11:28:29 AM) wonderchook: I find google docs easier for organizing
(11:29:09 AM) mkl: Firefishy: the Board sees that as very outdated
(11:29:35 AM) rweait1: There are blank spots.  Do all inquiries go to I'd think so.  It's theirs to approve.
(11:29:36 AM) mkl: it's why we're going through this process .. those spending guidelines haven't been updated in 5 years
(11:30:15 AM) rweait1: So they've worked for five years? 
(11:30:31 AM) mkl: not really
(11:30:44 AM) _chrisfl: Ideally rough budgets for a year would be worked out before the AGM and then approved discussed then?
(11:30:58 AM) _chrisfl: (if we want overall approval)
(11:31:06 AM) stevenfeldman: _chrisfl: +1
(11:31:12 AM) mkl: +1
(11:31:43 AM) wonderchook: +1:)
(11:31:49 AM) rweait1: Are we tasked with revising the proportions?  If so it should go to the community, with a report on historical spending proportions.
(11:32:02 AM) Eugene left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
(11:32:29 AM) mkl: The process we're laying out is to help work out revisions, yes
(11:32:49 AM) mkl: At each AGM, there's been a treasurer's report
(11:33:08 AM) stevenfeldman: Have we got any info on the proportions of spending? What would board do if they thought a proposal was important but it fell oitside of the guidelines? (I think I know :))
(11:34:37 AM) mkl: someone would need to go through it to figure that out, I don't think it's been done before
(11:35:09 AM) rweait1: okay, so we can't address it without an indication of the nature and scope of the problem.
(11:35:49 AM) stevenfeldman: would it be a problem if spend was outside of guideline props?
(11:35:53 AM) mkl: i don't understand you, rweait1
(11:36:32 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: no i don't think so. they're guidelines, and need revision
(11:36:39 AM) rweait1: Why are we discussion spending proportion, if we don't know how the historical proportions matched the guidelines?
(11:37:09 AM) stevenfeldman: cos firefishy raised the topic
(11:37:42 AM) mkl: right, this isn't the question we're dealing with, so let's move on
(11:38:02 AM) rweait1: next steps for budget?
(11:38:11 AM) rweait1: refer to board with forms?
(11:38:11 AM) mkl: everyone happy with it?
(11:38:48 AM) _chrisfl: yup
(11:39:53 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman, wonderchook, you can email board@?
(11:40:36 AM) stevenfeldman: I guess wonderchook knows address to do this? we can finalise off line
(11:40:56 AM) mkl:
(11:41:25 AM) mkl: ok next topic
(11:41:32 AM) mkl: i'm going to move up the feedback on tile layers
(11:41:52 AM) mkl: rweait1, can you explain the concern
(11:42:10 AM) rweait1: Do we want to wait until all board members have offered their feedback and do it all in one go?
(11:42:24 AM) rweait1: I've heard nothing from the rest.
(11:42:32 AM) mkl: i don't expect there's much more
(11:42:51 AM) rweait1: Perhaps not.  But it would be nice to know, eh?
(11:43:34 AM) rweait1: Perhaps we can ask for future board responses to at least offer a +1 / -1 / 0  as an acknowledgement?
(11:43:49 AM) mkl: oh i agree ... would be great to have more responsiveness
(11:44:05 AM) rweait1: Summary: 
(11:44:34 AM) rweait1: The non-commercial might need a better description, so that we don't look all "Oh, we hate business!"  
(11:44:43 AM) Eugene [~eugene@] entered the room.
(11:45:47 AM) stevenfeldman: why would we want to exclude commercial, perhaps we could just show preference to or encourage non commercial
(11:45:50 AM) mkl: all the other guidelines have some explanation right ... so just a little explanation of the thinking behind the non-commercial guideline was requested
(11:45:53 AM) rweait1: Currently we say, " Non-commercial services are preferred. "
(11:45:53 AM) _chrisfl: Fair enough, I don't think we meant to exclude tile sets offered by commercial providers.
(11:45:53 AM) _chrisfl: .
(11:46:06 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: exactly. it's a preference, but not a requirement
(11:46:10 AM) filbertkm left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
(11:46:42 AM) rweait1: I suggest that we prefer non-commercial because we are non-commercial, non-profit, ourselves. 
(11:46:48 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: still prob need to explain why we prefer, maybe tone down to encourage non commercial
(11:47:11 AM) mkl: suggested wording was something like "tiles should be independent of commercial bias (we don't want to become reliant on a service we don't control) or if we accept one commercial supplied tile layer we need to accept all of that type, therefore we are careful to accept such layers so that we can switch between them. That doesn't preclude their use but does make it a more studied process"
(11:47:15 AM) _chrisfl: Perhaps, more along the lines of tilesets should not be advertising or overtly commercial in nature. 
(11:47:44 AM) rweait1: stevenfeldman:  I think the current wording is fine.  But an additional explanation, a short one would be okay too,
(11:47:46 AM) wonderchook: yeah, I was thinking in the example of Mapquest I don't think they require attribution for example.  But if a provider required a giant blinking sign then probalby don't want to include them
(11:47:46 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait1: most open source foundations are non commercial but they are often very dependent upon and/or welcoming to commercial participants
(11:48:07 AM) Eugene: +1
(11:48:42 AM) rweait1: wonderchook:  stevenfeldman: I would expect those (advertising, and blinking sign) to never pass muster. 
(11:48:57 AM) rweait1: But given two identical tile layers why do we prefer non-commercial?  
(11:49:08 AM) rweait1: Because we are non-commercial ourselves.
(11:49:18 AM) rweait1: And like promotes like
(11:49:48 AM) stevenfeldman: polite -1
(11:49:59 AM) rweait1: To become dependent on a commercial service would weaken OSM. 
(11:50:26 AM) rweait1: To promote one specific commercial service at the expense of others weakens the community/.
(11:50:27 AM) _chrisfl: although having a title layer as an option isn't a big dependancy. 
(11:50:35 AM) mkl: yea, i think osmf doesn't want to be dependent on commercial services
(11:50:39 AM) mkl: but we do want to welcome them
(11:50:43 AM) mkl: subtle difference
(11:50:57 AM) rweait1: Absolutely.  welcome them.  
(11:51:04 AM) stevenfeldman: There is no dependency in putting a good commercial tile set in the layer picker, we can and will need to rotate the selection from time to time to give more people the chance of exposure
(11:51:31 AM) rweait1: So was the non-commercial criteria a mistake?
(11:51:43 AM) rweait1: do we actually not care?
(11:51:52 AM) wonderchook: well, I think with tiles for example it is easy to remove one if the dependency is an issue
(11:51:55 AM) _chrisfl: maybe it needs to be toned down. 
(11:52:03 AM) wonderchook: but we wouldn't build a commercial service into the OSM codebase
(11:52:05 AM) _chrisfl: Plus these are guidelines
(11:52:37 AM) mkl: i think we care and need to establish the boundary, _especially_ with all the rising commercial interest
(11:52:47 AM) mkl: _chrisfl: +1
(11:53:09 AM) rweait1: I like it as it is.  We don't apologize for "Free and Open style and stacks are preferred. " and we don't have to explain it further either.  
(11:53:20 AM) stevenfeldman: _chrisfl +1
(11:53:59 AM) RichardF: the problem with commercial providers isn't conflict of interest; it's perception of conflict of interest.
(11:54:24 AM) mkl: we explain everything else further. it's not being apologetic. it's making sure we strike the right tone that reflects our thinking
(11:54:37 AM) mkl: atm, it's too blunt and can be misinterpreted
(11:54:41 AM) RichardF: we know that free/open doesn't require non-commercial, but a newcomer coming to the site and seeing 37 MapQuest styles and 25 Bing ones will think "hang on, I thought this was supposed to be open"
(11:54:52 AM) RichardF: expectations have been conditioned, probably wrongly, by Wikipedia et al
(11:55:29 AM) _chrisfl: although given the other criteria, how likely are we to see 37 MapQuest styles and 25 Bing ones
(11:55:46 AM) Eugene: RichardF: I believe there should be a limitation on 1 layer per provider to avoid this
(11:55:58 AM) _chrisfl: How many new users even figure out they can change layers?
(11:55:58 AM) mkl: Perhaps someone can suggest some additional wording?
(11:56:00 AM) rweait1: We're bike shedding this.  Current wording is fine.  
(11:56:03 AM) stevenfeldman: richardf: surely we are never goint to have more than 5-8 tileset options in the layer picker? we could have a featured tileset of the day even to get more rotation
(11:56:24 AM) mkl: Yea, this is a rehash of a lot of discussion
(11:56:25 AM) RichardF: stevenfeldman, _chrisfl: layer switcher certainly needs some UI love. But I'm not volunteering!
(11:56:36 AM) mkl: We're pretty happy with the tile layer guidelines
(11:56:43 AM) Eugene: I agree with current variant.
(11:57:17 AM) mkl: Now we have the Board feedback that the current guideline doesn't reflect the full thinking here behind this guideline
(11:57:45 AM) mkl: So I don't think we can just say "it's fine", or we don't have Board approval
(11:57:45 AM) rweait1: no, we have feedback from one board member.
(11:58:03 AM) rweait1: we have nothing from the rest.  mkl excepted. ;-)
(11:58:15 AM) rweait1: and toffeehoff who helped write it.
(11:58:24 AM) mkl: ok well I agree with this feedback too :)
(11:58:31 AM) mkl: So as it's :02 mintues to go
(11:58:43 AM) mkl: I guess we table til next time
(11:58:56 AM) rweait1: attendance issue. 
(11:59:00 AM) _chrisfl: we could suggest "softening" with a clarification; as I think we're all on the same page?
(11:59:26 AM) rweait1: miblon missed last week and this without apologies.  
(11:59:28 AM) mkl: _chrisfl: all of us, except rweait1
(11:59:35 AM) rweait1: We have several others out this week as well.
(12:00:07 PM) mkl: rweait1: let's send warnings?
(12:00:11 PM) rweait1: Does an attendee have to ping or speak to be counted present?
(12:00:28 PM) Eugene: I believe, yes.
(12:00:37 PM) mkl: I think so ... it's too easy just to keep a channel open
(12:00:49 PM) Eugene: mkl:exactly
(12:01:15 PM) rweait1: so are we excusing unexcused absences on our new attendance policy already? ;-)
(12:01:39 PM) mkl: no ... what was our decision ... suspension?
(12:01:52 PM) rweait1: two and done as I recall
(12:02:01 PM) stevenfeldman: we may want to soften policy to say 3 strikes and out ie. one attendance per month?
(12:02:19 PM) mkl: well apologies at least ... that's not hard at all
(12:02:23 PM) rweait1: Why don't we discuss it next time?
(12:02:24 PM) Eugene: 3 is too much - we don't meet often
(12:02:34 PM) mkl: yea, i have to leave
(12:02:44 PM) mkl: same time next week is ok, i presume
(12:02:53 PM) rweait1: same same +1
(12:02:53 PM) Firefishy: Can someone ping me when we get to routing discussion. I am distracted by work @ moment. Also see
(12:03:07 PM) mkl: Firefishy: next time
(12:03:15 PM) rweait1: move to adjourn
(12:03:22 PM) mkl: adjourned
(12:03:30 PM) rweait1: ** logging ends **