- Proposed by: Henk Hoff
- Seconded by: Steven Feldman
- No objections. Minutes of 25 March 2011 accepted as written.
- response from board re Budgeting Proposal
- Kate / Steven referred Budget proposal to board in week leading up to 25 Feb 2011
- no official response from board.
- SWG unclear on next steps, pending board approval.
- Steven volunteered to assist Treasurer for a year on budget paperwork and process.
- Mikel to advise board of SWG recommendation that Treasurer run budget process, and Steven's offer.
- Contacted cmarqu re attendance
- Colin hadn't asked to be a member of SWG. SWG apologizes for the confusion and welcomes Colin to participate in future as his interests and schedule permit.
- No feedback from Board on next steps for routing.
- Mikel to seek board direction for Routing next steps for SWG or others.
- renewal of OSM.ORG front page discussion.
- OSMF Articles of Association Update
- AoA sub-committee held first meeting on 28 March 2011
- AoA sub-committee minutes of 28 March 2011
- SWG advise sub-committee to engage with community and review previously stated concerns about AoA.
- next AoA sub-committee meeting on 03 April 2011 @1600 UTC on #osm-strategic
- osm.org web site front page.
- discussion of osm.org font page purpose.
- discussion to continue next meeting
- next meeting Friday 08 April 2011 @ 1600UTC
(12:00:34 PM) rweait: *** Logging Begins ***
(12:00:51 PM) mkl: time zones in order, it's on
(12:01:09 PM) toffehoff [~toffehoff@524A14D5.cm-4-3a.dynamic.ziggo.nl] entered the room.
(12:01:11 PM) rweait: Previous minutes for consideration. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-25
(12:01:21 PM) mkl: who's here? apmon, RichardF, twain47, zere?
(12:01:29 PM) apmon: I am here
(12:01:34 PM) rweait: present
(12:01:42 PM) Eugene: present
(12:01:46 PM) mkl: you all have been busy :)
(12:01:58 PM) rweait: current (draft) minutes (in progress) http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-01
(12:02:08 PM) toffehoff: I'm here as well :-)
(12:02:17 PM) toffehoff: Happy to propose...
(12:02:24 PM) toffehoff: ... the minutes that is...
(12:02:40 PM) stevenfeldman: 2nd
(12:02:46 PM) Firefishy left the room.
(12:02:51 PM) rweait: objections to previous minutes?
(12:03:03 PM) Eugene: none
(12:03:13 PM) mkl: Agenda:
(12:03:29 PM) mkl: renewal of OSM.ORG front page discussion.
(12:03:38 PM) mkl: OSMF Articles of Association Update
(12:03:59 PM) mkl: And I'm curious to know how things will proceed with things that are relatively wrapped
(12:04:15 PM) rweait: ... as "old business" perhaps.
(12:04:20 PM) mkl: from an SWG perspective ... tile layers, budgeting, routing
(12:04:34 PM) mkl: sure old business ... or catching up the guy who was missing a month
(12:04:45 PM) mkl: anything else guys?
(12:04:55 PM) stevenfeldman: who is fakestevec?
(12:05:12 PM) rweait: stevenfeldman, another time perhaps?
(12:05:32 PM) rweait: attendance from last week, as Old Business.
(12:05:45 PM) mkl: i'm confident SWG now has the momentum to tackle that tough question
(12:06:17 PM) rweait: and next meeting? same/same on the 8th ?
(12:06:18 PM) mkl: ok, attendance issues
(12:06:32 PM) rweait: Okay. regarding cmarqu:
(12:07:16 PM) rweait: I presume we all saw his email to strategic@, and we can remove him from the membership list, and apologize for the error of including him without checking with him?
(12:07:33 PM) mkl: seems fine
(12:07:40 PM) rweait: and of course he is welcome to participate as it fits his schedule.
(12:07:50 PM) rweait: any objections?
(12:07:55 PM) toffehoff: None here.
(12:08:11 PM) mkl: cool
(12:08:20 PM) mkl: other old business
(12:08:27 PM) rweait: next Old Business is Budget proposal feedback from board?
(12:08:28 PM) mkl: tile layers policy can be moved to CWG now? has it?
(12:08:35 PM) rweait: oops okay, tiles.
(12:08:42 PM) rweait: CWG has not heard from board.
(12:09:02 PM) samlarsen1 [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room.
(12:09:04 PM) mkl: ok, Henk, I guess you and I need to raise that on Wednesday
(12:09:14 PM) mkl: it's in Board's hands
(12:09:16 PM) rweait: I'm comfortable saying that CWG will be all over this once it comes from the board.
(12:09:33 PM) apmon: what does CWG need to do? Just announce it?
(12:09:39 PM) rweait: yup.
(12:10:15 PM) mkl: ok. so can we review Budget now ... where's that at?
(12:10:33 PM) stevenfeldman: Everything has gone to board
(12:10:36 PM) rweait: Steven / Kate referred Budget docs to board on week of Feb 25.
(12:10:48 PM) rweait: No replies yet anybody?
(12:10:58 PM) mkl: ah ok. another one for us toffehoff?
(12:11:04 PM) mkl: I haven't been on Board calls either
(12:11:08 PM) stevenfeldman: not to me since stevec commented
(12:11:11 PM) toffehoff: The board had approved it.
(12:11:22 PM) toffehoff: Needs to get the next steps in place.
(12:11:38 PM) rweait: So what are the recommended next steps?
(12:11:55 PM) rweait: back to SWG for SWG to ping each WG for response and filled forms?
(12:12:07 PM) stevenfeldman: Board needs to explain procedure to WG's and ask for proposals
(12:12:27 PM) apmon: Has SWG filled out its own forms?
(12:12:32 PM) stevenfeldman: surely all wg's need to respond not just strategic?
(12:12:36 PM) mkl: Board or SWG. I think Board needs to decide who runs the process. Are we ok with either?
(12:12:45 PM) mkl: apmon wants us to eat our own dogfood?
(12:12:53 PM) stevenfeldman: woof woof
(12:12:55 PM) toffehoff: mkl I think it's up to the board to define the next steps.
(12:12:58 PM) apmon: yup?
(12:13:04 PM) toffehoff: That is a bit unclear....
(12:13:15 PM) stevenfeldman: if board wants to delegate up to swg to decide whether to accept etc
(12:13:52 PM) mkl: Vote: Are we ok with accepting to run budgeting procedure, if Board asks us to do so?
(12:14:16 PM) stevenfeldman: Shouldn't the treasurer run this process and receive submissions from all wg's?
(12:14:55 PM) stevenfeldman: if we accept strategic cannot propose any projects, would that be ok with startegic?
(12:15:10 PM) apmon: it definitely seems like the treasurer needs to be involved
(12:15:10 PM) toffehoff: It may not be very logical for the SWG to run this.
(12:15:30 PM) mkl: ok. we recommend to Board that Treasurer runs this?
(12:15:41 PM) Eugene: +1
(12:15:56 PM) toffehoff: +1
(12:16:00 PM) stevenfeldman: I will volunteer to support treasurer for year 1 but not as a member of strategic if that helps
(12:16:20 PM) toffehoff: That might help. Thanks stevenfeldman.
(12:16:46 PM) mkl: ok no objections?
(12:17:05 PM) mkl: final old business is routing
(12:17:40 PM) mkl: I see 2011/03/11 we're supporting osmf infrastructure for it
(12:17:44 PM) mkl: what's next?
(12:18:02 PM) apmon: the technical implementation and funding of the infrastructure
(12:18:07 PM) rweait: any actions required from SWG for routing?
(12:18:31 PM) mkl: so do we ask board to ask TWG to do this as part of budgetting?
(12:18:59 PM) apmon: Sounds reasonable
(12:19:00 PM) mkl: (perhaps Board just needs to get on top of what we're doing here)
(12:19:04 PM) toffehoff: we ask board to ask TWG to come up with a plan to implement routing.
(12:19:13 PM) rweait: that's a little "leading" why conflate roating with budget?
(12:19:32 PM) apmon: because routing will require some extra servers which cost money
(12:20:02 PM) rweait: that's not for SWG to say.
(12:20:15 PM) rweait: it may very well be perfectly accurate.
(12:20:24 PM) mkl: ok, we leave it to Board
(12:21:29 PM) rweait: tasks for last two points? Who will tell board about these?
(12:21:39 PM) mkl: I can do
(12:21:44 PM) rweait: so noted.
(12:22:01 PM) mkl: We can move on to Front Page, or Articles
(12:22:18 PM) stevenfeldman: Praying not AoA
(12:22:33 PM) toffehoff: Let's give a bit of feedback of the subcommittee.
(12:22:38 PM) rweait: AoA is just an update from sub-committee so it should be easy.
(12:22:43 PM) toffehoff: yup.
(12:22:47 PM) mkl: ok
(12:23:03 PM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-03-28
(12:23:15 PM) rweait: HOw is sub-committee engagement with the community? Have you bolstered your ranks?
(12:23:16 PM) toffehoff: That's the link to minutes and log of our first meeting.
(12:23:21 PM) TomH: just one point to bear in mind - a lot of the people with things to say about the front page will be on their way to the hack weekend today (as I will be in a minute)
(12:23:55 PM) toffehoff: The main discussion we had during our meeting was about membership.
(12:24:00 PM) rweait: TomH: thank you. So noted.
(12:24:12 PM) _chrisfl: I'm going to contact other interested parties.
(12:24:15 PM) rweait: toffehoff: membership of the sub-committee?
(12:24:29 PM) toffehoff: No, membership of the Foundation.
(12:24:40 PM) _chrisfl: no membership voting rights, especially wrt. local chapters.
(12:24:56 PM) toffehoff: Will have individual members, but also special kind of members: like local chapters.
(12:25:30 PM) toffehoff: We haven't come up with a solution, but identified this as an issue that needs to be resolved by a lawyer.
(12:25:57 PM) rweait: Is it a topic that concerns the community?
(12:26:23 PM) toffehoff: Dunno, but it is a topic that needs to be resolved looking at the AoA
(12:26:43 PM) toffehoff: If the community likes it or not :-)
(12:27:14 PM) apmon: It will be important to keep the community informed to make sure anyone can comment who wants to
(12:27:24 PM) rweait: We've been tasked to look at AoA. Frederik, Peter Miller and Jonathan Bennett have previsously expressed interest and concerns. Why are SWG "going rogue" and making decisions about importance without engaging the community?
(12:27:54 PM) _chrisfl: Yes, the plan is top break down the changes into various themes. We'll put these on the wiki.
(12:27:59 PM) toffehoff: We're not making decisions yet.
(12:28:05 PM) toffehoff: We're identifying isses.
(12:28:07 PM) toffehoff: issues.
(12:28:25 PM) _chrisfl: I'm planning on getting touch with Peter Miller, and seeing if he wants to attend our meetings.
(12:28:51 PM) _chrisfl: I *think* that changes would be best voted on at the AGM....
(12:29:00 PM) mkl: +1
(12:29:04 PM) rweait: including status for local chapters will have to consider this. No other companies have status in OSM. You might be opeing a back door for corporate control
(12:29:24 PM) toffehoff: Hence, we have an issue here.
(12:29:43 PM) _chrisfl: agree, currently we plan to just outline options.
(12:29:44 PM) mkl: wonder if chapters need to be in the Articles of Association, or can be done by some other resolution of the Board
(12:29:59 PM) toffehoff: IN the AoA the voting rights are defined.
(12:30:02 PM) stevenfeldman: surely we can make membership of foundation only open to individuals, 1 member 1 vote etc
(12:30:09 PM) _chrisfl: depends if we want them to count as a type of member.
(12:30:24 PM) _chrisfl: I think not, but Eugene was arguing for.
(12:30:35 PM) toffehoff: We're going into a discussion now......
(12:30:40 PM) mkl: would be good to have experience from other organizations in this discussion. fwiw, this is exactly the kind of thing Omidyar is interested in supporting.
(12:30:48 PM) toffehoff: You're all invited to join our next session :-)
(12:30:58 PM) mkl: when is that? :)
(12:31:27 PM) toffehoff: It's planned on Monday, but moved to Sunday (since I couldn't make monday)
(12:31:33 PM) toffehoff: .... hold on for time ...
(12:31:43 PM) toffehoff: 1600 UTC
(12:31:46 PM) mkl: anything else to update us on?
(12:31:55 PM) toffehoff: Same time as this meeting. Also on IRC (same channel)
(12:32:15 PM) rweait: can SWG advise sub-committee to engage with community and review previous-stated concenrs?
(12:33:02 PM) toffehoff: _chrisfl, Eugene, one of you happy to take that up?
(12:33:10 PM) _chrisfl: Thats our plan.
(12:33:17 PM) Eugene: yes
(12:33:30 PM) mkl: cool
(12:33:50 PM) _chrisfl: Yes, I think I have covered these in the themes, I hope to get these up on the Wiki over the weekend.
(12:34:06 PM) mkl: Time to move on to Front Page before the hack weekend imbibing begins?
(12:34:34 PM) ***toffehoff looking forward to hackingweekend
(12:34:50 PM) mkl: ok Front Page
(12:35:07 PM) mkl: what do we have to say? TomH?
(12:35:58 PM) mkl: last notes I see from the minutes are "Discussion considered moving to a "splash page"-like front page for osm.org, without the big map. The big map answers too few questions that first time visitors to osm.org might have. Any replacement front page should answer the basics of OSM - Who, What When, Where, Why, How? And it should direct various interest groups to further information that caters to their interests. Mappers, to how to map. Application develope
(12:36:34 PM) mkl: a lot of that is currently on the front page of the wiki, but perhaps not so "user friendly"
(12:37:40 PM) toffehoff: I think there may be some people during hackweekend who could draft something up / work on it?
(12:37:46 PM) stevenfeldman: is osm.org for mappers or people who use the map?
(12:37:51 PM) mkl: that would awesome
(12:37:52 PM) stevenfeldman: don't say both
(12:37:58 PM) mkl: both!
(12:38:11 PM) rweait: stevenfeldman: it should direct everybody to where they want to be.
(12:38:12 PM) apmon: It seems it would be useful to find out what the current page does. What does it convey to newcommers? Where are the biggest problems? What would they have expected?
(12:38:38 PM) mkl: any designers going to the hack weekend?
(12:38:40 PM) apmon: Does anyone know what happened to SteveC's usability testing?
(12:39:10 PM) rweait: From previous discussion, SWG supports a substantial change to a splash-type page. The rest is "operational" and not SWG, until somebody asks us to fund it.
(12:39:42 PM) rweait: Do we have direction from Board (or others) to do anything else with front page?
(12:40:16 PM) apmon: It would be really good to try and get some empirical results on what current and future mappers would most want from the main page
(12:40:32 PM) rweait: not our business, apmon.
(12:41:02 PM) mkl: we can suggest next steps. so far this process has been stuck at "great idea, someone needs to do something"
(12:41:18 PM) apmon: well, but without that information, trying to come up with ideas about what the main page should look like is a bit problematic
(12:41:19 PM) stevenfeldman: rweait: surely that is at the heart of the question and must be our business if we are going to review front page?
(12:41:27 PM) rweait: So we can recommend something to board, or we can wait for somebody to ask us to fund something.
(12:41:39 PM) stevenfeldman: apmon: +1
(12:42:15 PM) Eugene: +1
(12:42:30 PM) stevenfeldman: How difficult would it be to have a little splash box on front page that asked people to complete a short survey to gather some info about who uses and why?
(12:42:31 PM) mkl: there's been talk of a usability working group. if they existed, they'd but in a budget request. but not existing
(12:43:15 PM) rweait: Right, and anybody who suggests anything, without a patch for the rails port, is going to be faced with silence.
(12:44:02 PM) stevenfeldman: we can't talk about changes to the front page without understanding who uses it etc
(12:44:37 PM) rweait: Somebody what to volunteer to the SteveC's testing feedback?
(12:45:01 PM) mkl: I remember seeing this ... on talk@?
(12:45:10 PM) apmon: with respect to the main page, a patch is not the only problem, as osm won't accept the next best patch that just appears. It is important to build community consensus for any change first
(12:46:04 PM) apmon: I can try and ping SteveC about this
(12:47:09 PM) toffehoff: SteveC will be at hackweekend
(12:47:21 PM) mkl: I think SWG should make a plan for full usability review, testing, implementation for the Front Page. No one else is going to do it.
(12:48:01 PM) Eugene: mkl: +1
(12:48:07 PM) stevenfeldman: +1 if we gather some real user requirements beforehand
(12:48:08 PM) mkl: the more we can detail the issues, and how this will go, the easier it is for someone to pick this up
(12:48:33 PM) apmon: with several of the TWG on SWG, it is probably reasonably suited to combine the technical and political aspects of this issue
(12:48:44 PM) mkl: stevenfeldman: what i'm suggesting is that gathering user requirements be included as a step in the plan
(12:49:04 PM) stevenfeldman: mkl: ok +1 from me
(12:49:13 PM) apmon: +1
(12:49:22 PM) rweait: needs a sub-committee.
(12:49:26 PM) mkl: :)
(12:49:32 PM) _chrisfl: :)
(12:49:45 PM) stevenfeldman: oh no not another one :(
(12:50:05 PM) mkl: can we just say ... a few folks who want to work on this get together outside this meeting
(12:50:07 PM) rweait: no really. SWG will accomplish nothing if we're discussing usability all meeting.
(12:50:32 PM) mkl: and they'd be tasked with drafting a plan for us to talk about in 1-2 weeks time?
(12:50:54 PM) rweait: and SteveC's usability experts (for example) don't want to sit through us revieing board feedback on budgeting, etc...
(12:51:24 PM) rweait: but again, the sub-committee has to engage with the community and with experts.
(12:51:40 PM) rweait: lawyers for AoA, usability for front page.
(12:51:48 PM) mkl: perhaps it's the word "sub-committee" which is the problem ;)
(12:51:58 PM) rweait: perhaps it's me that is the problem.
(12:52:17 PM) stevenfeldman: surely we need to engage with people who use front page regardless of whether they are members of community, experts or just people who are interested in using our maps
(12:52:23 PM) rweait: It's not a WG, because it's for one task.
(12:52:35 PM) mkl: fwiw, i was only suggesting drawing up a plan, not implementing it
(12:53:26 PM) Eugene: Does osm.org has Google Analytis or some other statistic system? To have data to start with.
(12:53:57 PM) apmon: toffehoff: are you going to be at hackweekend? Will you be able to ask SteveC?
(12:54:03 PM) toffehoff: I don't think SWG should come up with all kinds of usability solutions etc.
(12:54:19 PM) toffehoff: I'll be at hackweekend.
(12:54:20 PM) mkl: in other words ... can a few of us summarize the discussion here, and in week's past, and write up a rough plan
(12:54:34 PM) toffehoff: Will talk with SteveC about this.
(12:54:40 PM) mkl: it can just present options, rather than answers
(12:54:44 PM) rweait: plan for who? Orders for things "other people must do!"
(12:54:44 PM) toffehoff: ... and possibly others ...
(12:54:54 PM) apmon: toffehoff: Ok, thanks
(12:54:55 PM) stevenfeldman: Step 1 - a couple of people draft plan, step 2 SWG agrees and recommends to board, step 3 a small group work through plan, do lots of consulting and come up with recommendations, step4 board approves, step 5 someone implements
(12:55:17 PM) mkl: Only step 1 and 2
(12:55:55 PM) mkl: Look, this discussion has been going on for three years. But it goes in circles. Just trying to find a way off and forward
(12:56:20 PM) toffehoff: We're most of the time discussing solutions.
(12:56:29 PM) toffehoff: Can we set up a list of requirements?
(12:56:32 PM) toffehoff: Goals?
(12:56:46 PM) toffehoff: I think that would be the role of SWF
(12:56:49 PM) toffehoff: SWG
(12:57:03 PM) rweait: toffehoff: only if they are reqwuirements / goals for ourselves.
(12:57:16 PM) toffehoff: No, for OSM
(12:57:20 PM) mkl: toffehoff: +1
(12:57:25 PM) rweait: we can't tell volunteers what to do.
(12:57:31 PM) toffehoff: How can we get OSM further
(12:57:43 PM) toffehoff: How should we use osm.org to get there.
(12:57:44 PM) rweait: Do something, rather than talking?
(12:58:08 PM) stevenfeldman: we can't tell volunteers what to do but we can ask them and if they ignore us then they are not really volunteers they are sort of splinter groups
(12:58:24 PM) apmon: rweait: What SWG can do is try and motivate people to do things by (trying to) building political consensus and connect the appropriate people together
(12:58:36 PM) mkl: apmon: +1
(12:58:42 PM) toffehoff: Doing is good. But doing what?
(12:58:56 PM) toffehoff: Everybody talks about osm.org and how to change it.
(12:59:11 PM) toffehoff: But we all do not have a common ground on what we want with osm.org
(12:59:22 PM) mkl: what we've been doing is surveying all the issues around the front page. if we can organize this into a coherent set of options to move forward, then the community and the foundation has something more solid to move forward with.
(12:59:30 PM) stevenfeldman: apmon: +1 would some kind of requirements gathering be a start?
(12:59:41 PM) apmon: Yes, coming up with some core goals and then evaluating with the usability group how well our current page achieves those and why it fails seems sensible
(12:59:49 PM) rweait: time check: wow.
(12:59:57 PM) mkl: 1 hour
(12:59:59 PM) mkl: i have to go
(01:00:09 PM) mkl: any conclusions from this?
(01:00:12 PM) rweait: continue next week, same/same?
(01:00:13 PM) stevenfeldman: time for a friday evening whisky
(01:00:27 PM) stevenfeldman: is this now the time slot
(01:00:35 PM) toffehoff: Same time, or change this to summertime?
(01:00:48 PM) rweait: 80 April 2011 @1600 UTC
(01:00:53 PM) rweait: er, 08 April
(01:01:15 PM) rweait: Stick with UTC, I don't care about your TZ, and vice versa. ;-)
(01:01:25 PM) mkl: i'm ok with either
(01:01:38 PM) toffehoff: Fine, just clearing things.
(01:01:54 PM) rweait: move to adjourn?
(01:01:59 PM) toffehoff: plz
(01:02:11 PM) mkl: adjourned
(01:02:14 PM) stevenfeldman: what time is it now in utc?
(01:02:19 PM) rweait: *** Logging Ends ***