Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-03-18

Attendance

IRC Name Present Apologies
_chrisfl Chris Fleming y
cmarqu Colin Marquardt
Firefishy Grant Slater y
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 y
twain47 Brian Quinion y
wonderchook Kate Chapman y
Also attending
IRC handle Name
Blackaddr Andy Robinson
apmon_ Kai Krueger
zere Matt Amos

Minutes

  • Proposed by: Brian Quinion
  • Seconded by: Henk Hoff
  • Old business
  • Feedback from board
  • Pending re: tile guidelines. Henk to follow up.
  • Agenda
  • Vote for including Eugene Usvitsky in SWG membership
  • Eugene has been contributing to SWG for some time but was absent on the "formalizing SWG" meeting and was left off the list of official members.
  • vote results: Eugene is formally welcomed to SWG by unanimous assent.
  • OSMF Articles of Association
  • next meeting Friday 25 March 2011 @ 1600UTC

IRC Log

(12:00:30 PM) rweait: ** Logging started *** 
(12:00:42 PM) rweait: I think we need an introduction from edward
(12:00:49 PM) RichardF: afternoon
(12:00:57 PM) stevenfeldman: hiya
(12:00:59 PM) apmon_: Hello
(12:02:10 PM) wonderchook left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.).
(12:02:35 PM) rweait: edward can you introduce yourself please?
(12:03:38 PM) _chrisfl: hi all
(12:04:09 PM) rweait: Previous minutes are up for review http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-11
(12:04:49 PM) wonderchook [~wondercho@209.155.228.129] entered the room.
(12:05:16 PM) wonderchook: hi all
(12:05:26 PM) toffehoff: While everyone is reviewing the minutes :-) Who is willing to propose and second them?
(12:06:57 PM) toffehoff: anyone?
(12:07:18 PM) rweait: I'm not going to write them, themm propose them each week. 
(12:07:21 PM) ***RichardF was not here last week so not appropriate to propose or second, I'm afraid
(12:07:57 PM) _chrisfl: I missed bit's of the meetings as I was in the car last week, so can't help :(
(12:08:25 PM) toffehoff: wonderchook: what's your opinion about last weeks minutes?
(12:10:18 PM) stevenfeldman: sorry I also was not ere last week
(12:10:29 PM) toffehoff: twain47: have you read the minutes?
(12:11:12 PM) twain47: toffehoff: not yet - distracted by work.
(12:11:29 PM) toffehoff: Should we move the approval of the minutes to next week?
(12:11:33 PM) no such channel
(12:12:22 PM) no such channel
(12:12:50 PM) edward left the room (Kicked by rweait (edward)).
(12:12:50 PM) edward [~edward@4angle.com] entered the room.
(12:13:17 PM) ***Blackadder is here today
(12:13:28 PM) toffehoff: edward: could you please make yourself known?
(12:13:32 PM) toffehoff: Hi Andy.
(12:13:32 PM) stevenfeldman: I guess we will have to if there is no one in attendance to confirm that they are a true record
(12:14:09 PM) _chrisfl: they seem to match the irc record 
(12:14:20 PM) toffehoff: I'm happy to propose (but I was actually waiting for someone else, so I could second...)
(12:15:11 PM) toffehoff: Does anyone else know who edward is?
(12:15:16 PM) mode (+b *!*@4angle.com) by rweait
(12:16:16 PM) twain47: edward: real names are required for this channel
(12:16:52 PM) twain47: I think I'm happy to propose the minutes.  They match the log I have.
(12:17:04 PM) toffehoff: Thanks twain47.
(12:17:10 PM) twain47: propose we accept them that is :)
(12:17:11 PM) toffehoff: I'm happy to second.
(12:17:18 PM) edward left the room (Kicked by rweait (edward)).
(12:17:35 PM) toffehoff: any objections to accepting the minutes?
(12:18:29 PM) TomH: whois analysis suggests "edward" is Edward Betts
(12:18:38 PM) toffehoff: ... in the mean time also mentioning that edward was removed from this channel 'cause he/she didn't make himself known.
(12:19:27 PM) rweait: I tried to get email confirmation 2 hours ago and had no reply.  this may not have been the real edward betts.
(12:19:29 PM) TomH: 4angle.com registered with Tom Betts as contact and at same address at edwardbetts.com
(12:19:56 PM) toffehoff: Ready to move along?
(12:20:06 PM) rweait: please.
(12:20:25 PM) toffehoff: OK. Some actions on my side: checking things with board.
(12:20:44 PM) toffehoff: Must admit that that is still pending. My apologies.
(12:21:18 PM) toffehoff: going ahead with other items:
(12:21:35 PM) toffehoff: - members of this group (adding Eugene?)
(12:22:09 PM) toffehoff: - New item: are our articles of Association still OK, or do we need to renew them....
(12:22:54 PM) toffehoff: That's what I had on my list for today....
(12:22:59 PM) toffehoff: Am I missing anything?
(12:24:43 PM) rweait: I guess not.
(12:25:15 PM) ***toffehoff ending a quick phonecall.
(12:25:23 PM) rweait: Background on Eugene ... 
(12:25:39 PM) rweait: Eugene has been on the list and often on these meetings, but missed the 
(12:26:19 PM) rweait: meeting when we were asked if we want to join SWG formally.  Do we want to invite Eugene to join formally, as he has been participating from the start?
(12:26:21 PM) stevenfeldman left the room.
(12:26:27 PM) rweait: Discussion?
(12:26:40 PM) _chrisfl: definitely agree.
(12:26:49 PM) stevenfeldman [~shfeldman@88.211.58.142] entered the room.
(12:26:55 PM) toffehoff: The formal list is here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups#Strategic_Working_Group
(12:27:23 PM) toffehoff: _chrisfl: agreeing with inviting Eugene or the discussion about it ?
(12:27:52 PM) _chrisfl: I agree with inviting, we only need a discussion if anyone doesn't agree.
(12:27:57 PM) RichardF: +1
(12:28:06 PM) rweait: Let's move to the vote then if discussion not required.  
(12:28:08 PM) toffehoff: (jsut checking)
(12:28:11 PM) rweait: Eugene +1
(12:28:17 PM) toffehoff: Eugene +1
(12:28:39 PM) rweait: votes against? 
(12:29:02 PM) toffehoff: How many votes do we need?
(12:29:20 PM) _chrisfl: 6 of 11 ?
(12:29:25 PM) rweait: 4:0 is good.  We have a quorum.
(12:29:37 PM) _chrisfl: +1
(12:29:38 PM) stevenfeldman: +1
(12:29:39 PM) Blackadder: 2 normally (eg like board)
(12:30:11 PM) rweait: Next topic? 
(12:30:16 PM) toffehoff: It's 5:0. 
(12:30:27 PM) stevenfeldman: sounds like a football game
(12:30:33 PM) toffehoff: Welcome to Eugene.
(12:30:42 PM) toffehoff: How it's here at the moment.
(12:30:54 PM) toffehoff: rweait: will you contact Eugene about this?
(12:31:02 PM) rweait: yup.
(12:31:06 PM) toffehoff: thanks!
(12:31:13 PM) rweait: He offered his apologies for today in advance. 
(12:31:40 PM) toffehoff: Next:
(12:31:55 PM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association
(12:32:13 PM) toffehoff: This one is set up years ago.
(12:32:43 PM) Blackadder: articles come bundled with a standard company set-up. They are not changed lightly in my experience
(12:32:48 PM) toffehoff: Is it still matching with our organisation or how we want to run our organisation.
(12:33:15 PM) ***Firefishy looks round to see if Peter Miller is here :-P
(12:33:20 PM) TomH: a better question is "did it ever match"
(12:33:26 PM) rweait: toffehoff: where is this topic coming from, why is it on our table?  Who else is working on it?
(12:33:32 PM) TomH: as Blackadder said, they were off the shelf
(12:34:09 PM) TomH: the idea (ages ago) was to look at them and see if there was a way to make people members of the company more easily (within the bounds of the companies act) to encourage greater membership of OSMF
(12:34:17 PM) Blackadder: Discussing the suitability with a corporate lawyer would help understand what's good and bad
(12:35:05 PM) toffehoff: Strategicly: do we need to have a look at it or not. If so, what problems do we need to solve?
(12:35:13 PM) toffehoff: Issues like:
(12:35:16 PM) toffehoff: -Membership
(12:35:35 PM) toffehoff: - Dealing with Local Chapters (are they members?)
(12:35:41 PM) _chrisfl: Working Groups?
(12:35:46 PM) Blackadder: Board has always been concered about "Membership" and how voting rights exist
(12:36:23 PM) Blackadder: _chrisfl: Working Groups are a management issue. Something for the Board to decide, not the Articles
(12:36:26 PM) rweait: That sounds "Operational" rather than "strategic".  Again, why is this in front of us?  Who raised it?  Who else is working on it or has worked on it?
(12:36:36 PM) Blackadder: The Articles should only be dealing with the legal stuff
(12:36:45 PM) apmon_: extending voting rights to the OSMF board without paying membership fees
(12:37:34 PM) toffehoff: It's an item that came up on one of the board meetings.
(12:37:51 PM) Blackadder: rweait: When I was on Board it was on my todo to set up an Articles group but it never happened
(12:38:01 PM) toffehoff: Right.
(12:38:19 PM) apmon_: The question of voting rights with respect to the larger OSM community seem more than "operational"
(12:38:37 PM) stevenfeldman: incidentally OSMF does not send out any membership renewal reminders and membership@osmfoundation.org doesn't answer queries, may be off topic but just sayin
(12:38:38 PM) Blackadder: I have a short list somewhere of those who were interested in helping out but its probably too old
(12:38:53 PM) toffehoff: The AoA is how we formally want the organisation to be.
(12:39:19 PM) RichardF: as a general principle, I think the challenge is not so much "allow more people to become involved in OSMF", as "enable people to make a difference themselves, without OSMF getting in the way"
(12:39:40 PM) _chrisfl: stevenfeldman - that one caught me out at the last AGM.... :)
(12:39:47 PM) Blackadder: worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_association
(12:39:47 PM) _chrisfl: RichardF +1
(12:39:48 PM) TomH: me too - my vote was rejected!
(12:39:49 PM) RichardF: expanding OSMF membership presupposes a greater role for OSMF. That's not necessarily an ideal situation to be in
(12:40:31 PM) zere: yes, and there have been no board minutes since 2010-12-12... just sayin'...
(12:40:51 PM) stevenfeldman: surely it would not be too difficult to send out membership reminders and help members to keep membership up to date, assuming we want to do that :)
(12:40:52 PM) apmon_: RichardF: However those decisions where OSMF have to get involved (e.g. licensing) are critical to have greater participation and acceptance
(12:41:07 PM) rweait: toffehoff:  so has the board assigned this to SWG?
(12:41:07 PM) RichardF: apmon_: your opinion. Am not convinced
(12:41:16 PM) toffehoff: zere: you're right on that. our secretary is trying to fix it.
(12:41:24 PM) apmon_: stevenfeldman: I have recently received an answere from membership@osmf, although no renewal reminder
(12:41:25 PM) toffehoff: rweait: yes.
(12:41:52 PM) rweait: can we refer membership issues to the membership secretary? Surely that is operational.
(12:42:13 PM) zere: toffehoff: i know, i contacted him about a month ago and started bugging him. when met with radio silence, i've been gradually escalating the scope of my complaints ;-)
(12:42:19 PM) toffehoff: rweait: yes we should refer that to our membership secretary.
(12:42:28 PM) toffehoff: zere: noted.
(12:42:30 PM) rweait: perhaps we can get two+ SWG volunteers to look at the AoA this week and present information next meeting?
(12:42:50 PM) stevenfeldman: problem is membership@osmfoundation.org never responds to mail, believe me I have tried
(12:43:13 PM) RichardF: who is membership secretary?
(12:43:22 PM) toffehoff: stevenfeldman: noted I'll have a chat with our secretary.
(12:43:25 PM) rweait: Now, Emilie, I think?
(12:43:30 PM) stevenfeldman: rweait: it is a big task won't get done in a week
(12:43:36 PM) toffehoff: It's Simone.
(12:43:49 PM) apmon_: My reply was from Michael Collinson
(12:43:59 PM) rweait: stevenfeldman: What?  A summary can't be done in a week?
(12:44:10 PM) toffehoff: We're in a transition fase of moving it to Michael to Simone.
(12:44:15 PM) Blackadder: btw, note the last para in the wikipedia article. Our Articles are based on the old system (ie they go hand in hand with the Memorandum). Thats one reason to ask the question whether they are still fit for purpose.
(12:44:16 PM) ***RichardF suspects the three different answers to "who is membership secretary" probably tells you something ;)
(12:44:24 PM) rweait: Not a change, but a summary of the current state of AoA, etc.
(12:44:25 PM) stevenfeldman: perhaps we could start with a high level review of what we might want to consider changing and why, then discss in SWG then take to a legal adviser
(12:45:10 PM) ***Blackadder is still part acting as Treasurer as Mike is part acting as secretary
(12:45:47 PM) rweait: volunteers to review the current state of AoA?
(12:45:48 PM) Blackadder: small part mind you, just administratively
(12:46:13 PM) rweait: Blackadder we thank you and Michael Collinson for your service.  ;-)
(12:46:27 PM) Blackadder: rweait: I think it would be better to find a suitable lawyer and then work out what questions need to be asked
(12:46:50 PM) stevenfeldman: blackadder: or the other way round?
(12:48:00 PM) apmon_: It seems you first want to know what to change before discussing with a lawyer how
(12:48:10 PM) Blackadder: none of us here really understand what needs to be in the Articles and they are typically written limiting what you put in to avoid unnecessary shackling
(12:48:42 PM) ***_chrisfl is wondering if an e-mail vote is allowed by the Articles?
(12:49:43 PM) toffehoff: Can we set up a set of questions about our organisation to start of a discussion with a lawyer?
(12:49:52 PM) apmon_: Isn't the "needs to be in a AoA"  already covered by the current ones? So is this about that the current one is invalid, or does not fit our needs
(12:50:03 PM) Blackadder: toffehoff: That would be my suggestion
(12:50:03 PM) rweait: We seem to be mostly uninformed regarding the issue before us.  Who will make themselves informed and guide the rest of us?  
(12:50:06 PM) apmon_: In the latter case, we would first need to figure out what our needs are
(12:50:36 PM) toffehoff: Let's put this issue a bit different:
(12:50:52 PM) toffehoff: Where do we see our organisation standing in a couple of years?
(12:51:01 PM) toffehoff: What is the Foundation doing?
(12:51:12 PM) toffehoff: What is the relationship with (Local) Chapters?
(12:51:41 PM) toffehoff: Are we going to support projects (paid)?
(12:51:52 PM) toffehoff: Are we hiring people?
(12:52:06 PM) ***Blackadder doesn't think these questions impact the Articles
(12:52:54 PM) stevenfeldman: Perhaps we should try to set out a vision for OSMF and it's role and then see if the existing AoA support that or need changing?
(12:52:58 PM) Blackadder: Questions like _chrisfl 's are though
(12:52:58 PM) _chrisfl: Agree with Blackadder, but they are good strategic questions.
(12:53:01 PM) apmon_: It is probably worth for everyone to have a read through the current ones till next week. That would give us a better understanding of what the scope is
(12:54:38 PM) Blackadder: toffehoff: As _chrisfl says, all good strategic questions you listed
(12:54:42 PM) rweait: ... and we're coming up on the top of the hour.  same.same next week?
(12:55:23 PM) toffehoff: Looking at where we are now: what to do next? (and next week)
(12:55:23 PM) _chrisfl: Think we need to do some articles homework. They're not easy to read.
(12:55:48 PM) Blackadder: lawyer speak
(12:56:13 PM) rweait: do we have a link to the OSMF articles as they satnd?
(12:56:36 PM) toffehoff: rweait: what do you mean with that?
(12:56:38 PM) Blackadder: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association
(12:56:44 PM) stevenfeldman: Are articles going to be the only topic?
(12:56:57 PM) Blackadder: as toffehoff posted at the top of the meeting
(12:57:06 PM) _chrisfl: also the bit about only sending notices to members in the UK isn't appropriate.
(12:57:14 PM) ***toffehoff has still pending items on my plate....
(12:57:34 PM) stevenfeldman: sounds like a post st patrick's day thing "top of the meeting to you"
(12:58:39 PM) rweait: thanks. link added to minutes. 
(12:58:41 PM) _chrisfl: Blackadder- I have worked on similar elsewhere, see http://www.bedlamites.co.uk/content/Committee/4 much easier to read? and still "lawyer approved"
(12:58:42 PM) toffehoff: euh.... ?
(12:59:41 PM) toffehoff: OK: everyone go throught the AoA 
(01:00:10 PM) toffehoff: and see if you think they are still ok and not: where they may need some changing.
(01:00:23 PM) toffehoff: With that we can go to a lawyer....
(01:00:40 PM) toffehoff: Sounds ok?
(01:00:58 PM) rweait: anyone not aboe to review the AoA prior to next meeting? 
(01:01:08 PM) rweait: s/aboe/albe/
(01:01:15 PM) rweait: er, ABLE.
(01:01:43 PM) rweait: next meeting Friday 25 March 2011 @ 1600UTC  any apologies? 
(01:01:55 PM) Blackadder: Things I can think of:
(01:01:57 PM) Blackadder: Email voting
(01:01:59 PM) Blackadder: Who has voting rights now (and how improve)
(01:02:01 PM) Blackadder: Impact of international operations
(01:02:03 PM) rweait: That's after a time change for you Europeans, isn't it?
(01:02:22 PM) toffehoff: I think the time change is at the end of the month....
(01:02:29 PM) toffehoff: ... checking ...
(01:02:30 PM) _chrisfl: I think we have another month.
(01:02:40 PM) _chrisfl: s/month/week/
(01:02:50 PM) toffehoff: march 27th.
(01:03:05 PM) Blackadder: yep
(01:03:37 PM) rweait: move to adjourn?
(01:03:43 PM) toffehoff: Next week I need to leave at 7 UTC sharp.
(01:03:43 PM) stevenfeldman: till next week then :)
(01:03:54 PM) toffehoff: have a good one!
(01:04:14 PM) rweait: *** Logging ended ***