- Proposed by: Chris Fleming
- Seconded by: Steven Feldman
- no objections. Minutes accepted as written.
- Pending re: tile guidelines. Henk to follow up.
- Board accepted recommendation. Board to refer tile policy to CWG for announcement.
- renewal of OSM.ORG front page discussion added to agenda for next meeting.
- OSMF Articles of Association
- AoA sub-committee will be Henk Hoff, Eugene Usvitsky, Chris Fleming, plus others interested from wider community.
- Richard Weait to contact cmarqu re; several unexpected absences
- next meeting Friday 01 April 2011 @ 1600UTC
(12:00:11 PM) rweait1: *** logging begins ***
(12:00:29 PM) toffehoff: Hello all. It's at the hour.
(12:00:48 PM) toffehoff: Shall we start?
(12:00:49 PM) rweait1: any apologies to note other than mkl ?
(12:00:56 PM) samlarsen1 [email@example.com] entered the room.
(12:01:02 PM) toffehoff: Not that I know off.
(12:01:57 PM) ***toffehoff dropping the phone.
(12:02:12 PM) toffehoff: First some formalities:
(12:02:17 PM) toffehoff: Previous minutes...
(12:02:34 PM) _chrisfl: Proposed
(12:02:38 PM) rweait1: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-18 <-- for appoval
(12:02:39 PM) toffehoff: rweait1: I think you have the link by hand.
(12:03:02 PM) toffehoff: Thanks _chrisfl for proposing.
(12:03:09 PM) toffehoff: Anyone seconding?
(12:03:17 PM) ***_chrisfl runs to grab a tea
(12:04:46 PM) toffehoff: ... still waiting for a seconder...
(12:05:23 PM) rweait1: This is like pulling teeth.
(12:05:30 PM) stevenfeldman: 2nder
(12:05:40 PM) rweait1: Thank you
(12:05:41 PM) toffehoff: Thanks Steven.
(12:06:00 PM) toffehoff: And thank you rweait for setting up the minutes.
(12:06:20 PM) rweait1: no objections, unless raised before the end of the meeting perhaps?
(12:06:23 PM) toffehoff: If no objections, then they are approved.
(12:06:49 PM) stevenfeldman: this google doc may help in a collaborative discussion on articles https://docs.google.com/document/d/196OqC0p_K2m-WEiUsh_E52nV9md_CYfabHuAX8zChLk/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CMKFxtwO#
(12:08:13 PM) toffehoff: Thanks again steven.
(12:08:13 PM) toffehoff: I had still the tile-proposal on my plate.
(12:08:19 PM) toffehoff: No objections from the board. They will be pushed to the communications WG for further publication.
(12:08:43 PM) toffehoff: Thanks Strategic for setting this proposal together.
(12:08:51 PM) rweait1: I'll note that for the minutes.
(12:09:01 PM) stevenfeldman: Perhaps anyone lie _chrisfl who sent comments by mail would like to copy into doc as "comments"
(12:09:05 PM) _chrisfl: stevenfeldman - I was going to try and add my comments, but don't seem to be able to.
(12:10:34 PM) stevenfeldman: apols, editing enabled
(12:10:34 PM) toffehoff: That works better.
(12:11:36 PM) rweait1: are we going to tackle AoA as a group, or perhaps as a smaller focus group? What other topics do we have for today?
(12:11:37 PM) stevenfeldman: :) :)
(12:12:09 PM) toffehoff: As for other topics: I do not have one for today....
(12:13:17 PM) rweait1: from 11 March 2011 - we have a topic open for discussion at a future meeting, but it is not on our schedule. - OSM.ORG front page. Shall we put that on for next meeting?
(12:13:18 PM) toffehoff: If there are no other topics .... can we go through them and highlight questions we have?
(12:13:57 PM) Eugene: I like the idea of osm.org discussion renewal, today or next time.
(12:14:44 PM) stevenfeldman: osm.org could occupy us for weeks! everyone will have different views on what it should be doing?
(12:14:51 PM) rweait1: No kidding.
(12:15:14 PM) rweait1: Guess what, AoA is a snake pit too.
(12:15:37 PM) stevenfeldman: rweait1: that's why it gets lobbed in our direction
(12:15:41 PM) _chrisfl: I noticed that the communications WG decided that osm.org was to contravertial to look into at this time...
(12:16:07 PM) rweait1: But that's why SWG and all other WGs exist. tackle stuff individual mappers can't / won't do, for the benefit of all.
(12:16:20 PM) toffehoff: I propose to discuss osm.org next week and try to go through the AoA today. OK?
(12:16:28 PM) stevenfeldman: has anyone done any user surveys on osm.org? That might be a starting point, why do people use, what do they do, etc?
(12:16:37 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: second
(12:16:57 PM) _chrisfl: +1
(12:17:01 PM) Eugene: +1
(12:17:17 PM) stevenfeldman: ++1
(12:17:20 PM) toffehoff: It's not my objective to have a clear view of what needs to be changed.
(12:17:42 PM) RichardF: stevenfeldman: AIUI there was a third-party solution installed on the site to randomly throw surveys at people - don't know the exact details I'm afraid
(12:17:45 PM) toffehoff: Let's see where we have questions and what kind of questions we should put forward to a lawyer.
(12:18:16 PM) _chrisfl: Would need to spend some time coming up with some good questions for a survey
(12:18:52 PM) RichardF: and, in general, surveys only tell you what your existing users want, not why your prospective users are staying away from the site
(12:18:59 PM) rweait1: that's for next week though, isn't it?
(12:19:11 PM) RichardF: (that's from many years' experience of not running magazine reader surveys ;) )
(12:19:22 PM) TomH: RichardF: that whole point of that survey (which AFAIK was never activated) was to soliicit new users as they signed up
(12:19:28 PM) rweait1: what about meta-AoA today. How do we want to approach this snake pit?
(12:19:33 PM) RichardF: TomH: right
(12:19:47 PM) toffehoff: Guys, let's stick with one subject.
(12:21:02 PM) toffehoff: Shall we go through steven's gdoc section by section?
(12:21:02 PM) toffehoff: And see where we may see issues.
(12:21:06 PM) toffehoff: If a section looks clear. We can leave it.....
(12:21:26 PM) rweait1: Who's on this task? everybody and today?
(12:21:53 PM) stevenfeldman: do we have a copy of the memorandum of association available? that should set out the purposes of osmf
(12:22:18 PM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association
(12:22:21 PM) rweait1: A section-by-section analysis (by non-lawyers) seems silly without actual question\s to address.
(12:23:03 PM) _chrisfl: There are lots of questions we can consider.
(12:23:16 PM) _chrisfl: in terms of what we are wanting.
(12:24:25 PM) _chrisfl: we need a lawyer for stuff we're no sure of (membership) and to check any changes we want to make.
(12:24:29 PM) _chrisfl: or possibly "word" any changes we waznt to make
(12:25:46 PM) rweait1: Anybody look at the review by ITO's lawyer?
(12:26:23 PM) rweait1: I did. I see one question from there to address, as SWG.
(12:26:30 PM) _chrisfl: Yes, there main concern was the power of the Chair,
(12:27:13 PM) rweait1: Frederik asked (tongue in cheek) if there were any members, other than the 3.
(12:27:37 PM) rweait1: TomH (I think) asked if member addresses were an issue.
(12:27:39 PM) _chrisfl: There are a few changes we can make to address that if we think that's an issue; for example only allowing adjournment with a vote and only giving the chair a casting vote.
(12:28:02 PM) _chrisfl: Management of members is an issue.
(12:28:07 PM) rweait1: Now starting by reviewing each section, without questions in mind first, is a fool's game.
(12:28:30 PM) rweait1: So what are the questions we want to address? And who is going to do it?
(12:28:37 PM) TomH: rweait1: the issue there is nothing to do with the articles, it's just that we're not following the rules in terms of keeping a proper register of members - that is a legal requirement that we can't override in the articles
(12:28:40 PM) rweait1: There is NO WAY to do this today.
(12:29:15 PM) toffehoff: Looking at the current discussion:
(12:29:21 PM) rweait1: Unless we're planning on reading and understanding the law as well as the AoA.
(12:29:27 PM) toffehoff: which issues do we need to deal with?
(12:29:30 PM) stevenfeldman: Question from me - the AoA is meant to govern the organisation and ensure we stick to piurpose. Do we need to review purpose and relationship to OSM before AoA/
(12:29:41 PM) toffehoff: - Membership
(12:29:54 PM) toffehoff: - Roles and power of the board and chair
(12:30:40 PM) toffehoff: - Type of company (charity ?)
(12:33:08 PM) rweait1: toffehoff, you said you wanted to keep this short today and we're at :32. Should we work on meta-AoA, rather than the nitty gritty?
(12:33:33 PM) rweait1: This AoA will be 10 weeks if it will take a day. Probably 6 months.
(12:34:15 PM) toffehoff: Let's try and set the issues we need to look at.
(12:34:24 PM) rweait1: Perhaps 5 folks will volunteer to sub-committee, report to us each week with questions, answers and updates?
(12:34:46 PM) rweait1: So we can all keep posted, but a lot can happen in parallel?
(12:35:03 PM) toffehoff: Sounds good to me...
(12:35:26 PM) Eugene: +1
(12:36:00 PM) rweait1: against?
(12:36:19 PM) stevenfeldman: Sorry i can't offer to help on this one at the moment, struggling for time
(12:36:48 PM) _chrisfl: +1
(12:37:12 PM) toffehoff: ... so who's volunteering :-)
(12:37:12 PM) rweait1: Perhaps toffehoff and eugene can take this, get Peter and Frederik to help, and get another from talk@ to round it out?
(12:38:16 PM) toffehoff: Eugene, _chrisfl can I ping you about this somewhere during the weekend?
(12:38:38 PM) Eugene: tofflehoff: ok
(12:38:41 PM) _chrisfl: Sounds fine to me,
(12:38:50 PM) toffehoff: Awesome.
(12:38:57 PM) Eugene: rweait1: great "volunteering" :)
(12:39:16 PM) rweait1: For the minutes, will you find others from the lists to add to the sub-committee?
(12:40:14 PM) Eugene: rweait1: me?
(12:40:25 PM) stevenfeldman: I added Memorandum of Association to the bottom of doc in case it is useful
(12:40:32 PM) toffehoff: thanks steven.
(12:40:38 PM) _chrisfl: Anyone object if I add some numbering to the google docs document?
(12:40:39 PM) rweait1: Sorry eugene, to the chair.
(12:41:26 PM) Eugene: :)
(12:41:37 PM) toffehoff: If anyone else wants to join this sub-committee, they're welcome :-)
(12:42:02 PM) toffehoff: We'll keep you all posted on who's participating.
(12:42:13 PM) rweait1: toffehoff and group, how about minuting a goal for next week? re: AoA "Round out sub-committee, find initial questions?"
(12:42:19 PM) ***_chrisfl can hear everyione taking a step backwards
(12:42:48 PM) toffehoff: rweait1: sounds doable
(12:43:15 PM) rweait1: I think it is critical to get community feedback on this. If there are questions "out there" they need to be considered.
(12:43:16 PM) _chrisfl: sounds fair
(12:43:19 PM) TomH: I know JonathanB said he volunteered several years ago, but he can't generallly make these meetings
(12:43:28 PM) TomH: so he worth talking to about a subcommittee
(12:43:43 PM) rweait1: TomH, so perhaps he can be brought in via email etc. ?
(12:44:25 PM) toffehoff: Any other issues?
(12:44:25 PM) rweait1: All that should be on strategic@ I think. So it will be public discussion.
(12:44:46 PM) toffehoff: If not, moving to adjourn?
(12:44:49 PM) rweait1: Re: AoA? not from me. We have an attednance issue?
(12:45:18 PM) rweait1: cmarqu has been absent for a while. Anybody care to ping him and find out if he is still interested?
(12:45:47 PM) toffehoff: Can you rweait1?
(12:45:56 PM) rweait1: If so directed. Shall do.
(12:46:00 PM) stevenfeldman: Currently the google doc is visible to all with the URL and set to edit, is that ok?
(12:46:03 PM) rweait1: And I'll minute it.
(12:46:13 PM) toffehoff: Great this "volunteering" :-)
(12:46:28 PM) rweait1: same / same for next week? Keeping the UTC 1600 or are we changing for summer time?
(12:46:41 PM) toffehoff: stevenfeldman: that may not be very handy...
(12:46:43 PM) rweait1: "volunteer" vs. "voluntold"
(12:47:01 PM) toffehoff: Shall we change for summertime?
(12:47:02 PM) stevenfeldman: toffehoff: I know which is why i mentioned
(12:47:17 PM) rweait1: Perhaps use the wiki rather than gdocs?
(12:47:47 PM) stevenfeldman: less easy for collab doc building and comments
(12:47:58 PM) toffehoff: stevenfeldman: could you make it editable for the sub-committee?
(12:48:09 PM) toffehoff: and only visible for the rest?
(12:48:42 PM) stevenfeldman: sure just send me list of emails and I will limit sharing and send invites
(12:48:52 PM) rweait1: clarification for the minutes: AoA will be toffehoff, chrisfl, eugene, plus others from community?
(12:49:06 PM) toffehoff: yes
(12:49:12 PM) Eugene: yes
(12:49:57 PM) toffehoff: So, next week: UTC 1700 (due to summertime)?
(12:50:35 PM) _chrisfl: UTC 1700 works for me
(12:50:37 PM) rweait1: UTC 1700 abstain.
(12:51:16 PM) toffehoff: Ho wait. UTC1700 that not the same time in summertime....
(12:51:21 PM) toffehoff: is it...
(12:51:34 PM) ***_chrisfl thinks the clocks jump forward an hour
(12:51:54 PM) ***_chrisfl is sad the weekend is 1 hour shorter
(12:52:14 PM) toffehoff: So, currently we started at UTC 1500, moving to UTC1600. Right?
(12:52:15 PM) RichardF: yeah, but it means there is moar evening for mapping!
(12:53:04 PM) _chrisfl: currently we start at UTC 1600?
(12:53:09 PM) stevenfeldman: Is utc 17 the same as gmt 17?
(12:53:42 PM) toffehoff: Let's say: next week same time in Europe?
(12:53:59 PM) toffehoff: timezones ;-(
(12:54:14 PM) _chrisfl: chrisfl@chrisfl-laptop ~ 0 $ date
(12:54:14 PM) _chrisfl: Fri Mar 25 16:53:56 GMT 2011
(12:54:15 PM) _chrisfl: chrisfl@chrisfl-laptop ~ 0 $ export TZ=UTC
(12:54:15 PM) _chrisfl: chrisfl@chrisfl-laptop ~ 0 $ date
(12:54:15 PM) _chrisfl: Fri Mar 25 16:54:04 UTC 2011
(12:54:35 PM) stevenfeldman: I hate timezones they are nearly as confusing as coordinate systems and projections 9.9
(12:54:52 PM) RichardF: yeah, we need Spherical UTC which boils everything down to the lowest common denominator
(12:54:56 PM) toffehoff: I need to be going.
(12:54:58 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: NO. Let's say something UTC, and let everybody figure out their own tz
(12:55:10 PM) RichardF: and then the European Plutonium Swatch Group can refuse to give it a code because it's not a proper timezone
(12:55:15 PM) RichardF: or something
(12:55:39 PM) stevenfeldman: 16 utc?
(12:55:52 PM) rweait1: 1600 UTC +1
(12:56:16 PM) stevenfeldman: +1
(12:56:19 PM) toffehoff: +1
(12:56:29 PM) rweait1: objections?
(12:56:44 PM) rweait1: move to adjourn? +1
(12:56:52 PM) toffehoff: +1
(12:56:59 PM) rweait1: there you go. Three minutes early.
(12:57:02 PM) Firefishy: So 1 hour later in the UK/EU next week.
(12:57:09 PM) toffehoff: :-)
(12:57:11 PM) rweait1: objections to adjourn?
(12:57:19 PM) toffehoff: Have a good weekend all!
(12:57:25 PM) toffehoff left the room.
(12:57:28 PM) stevenfeldman: +1
(12:57:35 PM) stevenfeldman left the room.
(12:58:18 PM) rweait1: Wow. There is actually a puff of dust in the shape of toffehoff, and I think I heard a sonic boom. ;-)
(01:00:36 PM) rweait1: *** logging ends ***