Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-04-15

Attendance

IRC Name Present Apologies
_chrisfl Chris Fleming y
Eugene Eugene Usvitsky y
Firefishy Grant Slater y
mkl Mikel Maron y
RichardF Richard Fairhurst y
rweait Richard Weait y
samlarsen1 Sam Larsen
stevenfeldman Steven Feldman y
toffehoff Henk Hoff y
TomH Tom Hughes y
twain47 Brian Quinion y
wonderchook Kate Chapman
Also attending
IRC handle Name
apmon Kai Krueger
Blackadder Andy Robinson

Minutes

  • Proposed by: Steven Feldman
  • Seconded by: no seconder available.
  • approval of Minutes of 08 April 2011 deferred to next week.
  • Old business
  • response from board re Budgeting Proposal
  • Treasurer reviewing and will contact SWG if required
  • response from board re Tiles policy proposal
  • Board has approved tile policy and passed it to CWG for publication.
  • response from board re Routing
  • Board approved SWG Routing recommendations and passed it to TWG for consideration / implementation as appropriate.
  • Agenda
  • OSMF Articles of Association Update
  • engagement with community re: previously stated concerns about AoA is in progress.
  • AoA considering when / which lawyer to engage with re AoA advice.
  • next AoA sub-committee meeting 18 April 2011 1600UTC
  • osm.org web site front page.
  • discussion of osm.org front page purpose.
  • suggestion of each SWG member getting feedback from a new user re: web site.
  • SWG functionality
  • 08 apr 2011 minutes unapproved. no seconder available due to apologies last week and this.
    attendance is down. Only five participating today. Is this a quorum? Not by our previous discussions. Add SWG admin issues to agenda for next meeting.
  • next meeting Friday 22 April 2011 @ 1600UTC

IRC Log

(11:59:45 AM) rweait1: *** Logging Begins ***
(12:00:11 PM) rweait1: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-08
(12:00:15 PM) toffehoff: Hello all !
(12:00:20 PM) stevenfeldman: hiya
(12:00:29 PM) rweait1: ack!
(12:01:01 PM) rweait1: Can we review the previous minutes please, and confirm our next meeting as this time and day next week?
(12:01:02 PM) toffehoff: Can we start off with accepting previous minutes?
(12:02:50 PM) toffehoff: I wasn't present last week. But next week this time would be possible for me.
(12:02:57 PM) apmon: accepting previous minutes always seems rather difficult... :-S
(12:03:10 PM) toffehoff: Anyone able to propose?
(12:03:12 PM) _chrisfl: rwait1 I missed the early part of last week. But the second half look fine.
(12:03:35 PM) rweait1: Attendance call. Tell us if you are participating today.
(12:03:37 PM) rweait1: I'm in.
(12:03:50 PM) _chrisfl: I'm in
(12:03:59 PM) toffehoff: +1
(12:03:59 PM) stevenfeldman: Can i propose if I chaired?
(12:04:09 PM) stevenfeldman: +1
(12:04:11 PM) rweait1: stevefeldman, yes please and thank you.
(12:04:20 PM) _chrisfl: stevenfeldman - yes
(12:04:42 PM) _chrisfl: you're just checking that richard didn't make anything up.
(12:04:57 PM) toffehoff: Anyone willing to second?
(12:05:06 PM) stevenfeldman: 1 amendment, I thought there was an action to do some anecdotal user testing for front page, sort of grany test
(12:06:05 PM) rweait1: there was discussion on that, but not an an action on anybody. More like an action on everybody, then everybody stepped back from the volunteer line.
(12:06:49 PM) stevenfeldman: rweait1: I love the image of stepping back from the volunteer line
(12:06:55 PM) rweait1: see second sub point in osm.org discussion.
(12:07:03 PM) _chrisfl: or quickly closing irc.
(12:07:14 PM) rweait1: Would you like our disinterest minuted more completely? ;-)
(12:08:15 PM) rweait1: let's proceed and see if we get a second before we finish today.
(12:08:47 PM) rweait1: Anything to add to the agenda last minute?
(12:10:05 PM) stevenfeldman: nope
(12:10:27 PM) rweait1: toffehoff care to start. I'll brb.
(12:10:40 PM) toffehoff: OK...
(12:10:55 PM) toffehoff: while we wait for a seconder...
(12:11:24 PM) toffehoff: Old business....
(12:11:36 PM) toffehoff: Budgetting
(12:12:29 PM) stevenfeldman: no further feedback from the board on budget apparently the treasurer is considering. not our responsibility any longer
(12:12:30 PM) rweait1: back now (sorry)
(12:12:50 PM) toffehoff: stevenfeldman: right
(12:13:12 PM) toffehoff: the treasurer has taken this up.
(12:13:25 PM) _chrisfl: Just as an aside, I was wondering if osmf doesn't spend all the money do we have to pay corporation tax on profits?
(12:13:25 PM) toffehoff: Tile policy:
(12:13:50 PM) rweait1: _chrisfl: OSMF has an accountant for that question.
(12:14:12 PM) toffehoff: Don't know the answer to that question right away.
(12:14:30 PM) rweait1: iirc: board has approved tile policy as amended and will pass it along to CWG for publication.
(12:14:33 PM) toffehoff: But, to my current knowledge, we haven't paid tax on profit.
(12:14:47 PM) toffehoff: yes on tile-policy
(12:14:51 PM) toffehoff: Routing.
(12:14:57 PM) toffehoff: Also accepted.
(12:15:04 PM) apmon: great
(12:15:27 PM) toffehoff: Pushed it to technical for further action.
(12:15:37 PM) rweait1: routing also passed to CWG for publication.
(12:15:52 PM) rweait1: er, undo. Like henk said.
(12:16:22 PM) toffehoff: I think that was feedback from board....
(12:16:28 PM) apmon: Once CWG has published it, one would contact TWG to request to add a specific layer?
(12:16:37 PM) stevenfeldman: gosh feels like we are actually making progress, pinches himself :)
(12:16:58 PM) _chrisfl: apmon yes
(12:17:18 PM) toffehoff: rweait1: next?
(12:17:23 PM) rweait1: stevenfeldman: don't get ahead of yourself. We have "front page" on the agenda. ;-)
(12:17:33 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: AoA update?
(12:17:47 PM) toffehoff: Had a meeting tuesday.
(12:18:04 PM) toffehoff: Came up with many more questions related to AoA
(12:18:17 PM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-12
(12:18:22 PM) rweait1: from the AoA minutes, I don't see reference to engaging with the wider community, or those who previously raised the topic?
(12:19:10 PM) toffehoff: I recall a message to the mailinglist from you....
(12:19:23 PM) _chrisfl: Yes - I've still not e-mailed specific people we spoke about. But will do so this evening.
(12:19:45 PM) rweait1: I'll mark that as "in progress", ;-)
(12:20:03 PM) _chrisfl: In terms of the wider community we did briefly talk about having a discussion at SOTM-EU
(12:20:33 PM) toffehoff: how do you all feel about this?
(12:20:35 PM) rweait1: Is there a reason why that discussion should wait, and be restricted to attendees?
(12:21:15 PM) _chrisfl: I think we need to do a bit more work as a set of proposals that can be discussed.
(12:21:21 PM) rweait1: If there is a discussion at sotm-eu, wouldn't starting the discussion widely on the lists encourage more participation at the event?
(12:21:36 PM) stevenfeldman: no reason to restrict to attendees but at least at sotm-eu there will be a fair number of regular contributors, while this discussion seems to be only engaging a very small number
(12:21:49 PM) _chrisfl: So would discuss at SOTM-EU, and propose as changes at the AGM
(12:22:09 PM) _chrisfl: unless we should call an EGM and make the changes prior to AGM?
(12:22:15 PM) rweait1: _chrisfl: do we know that changes must be made?
(12:22:25 PM) _chrisfl: I think so.
(12:22:30 PM) stevenfeldman: need to open up discussion on lists, derive some options for discussion and then perhaps take to sotm-eu
(12:22:31 PM) toffehoff: I think so too.
(12:22:31 PM) _chrisfl: there is a lot broken.
(12:22:53 PM) _chrisfl: To start with they're not numbered which technically means they're not valid...
(12:22:57 PM) rweait1: When do the questions from the community go in front of a lawyer?
(12:23:16 PM) _chrisfl: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/6/part/I/chapter/I/crossheading/articles-of-association/enacted
(12:23:20 PM) toffehoff: I've talked with Mikel regarding a lawyer.
(12:24:31 PM) toffehoff: sidestep: since this is AoA of the Foundation. We could limit the discussion to only Foundation members.... Any thought about this?
(12:25:04 PM) rweait1: apmon: your question. yes - I think is the answer. Tile requests go to TWG, though putting them on the wiki / scorecard and discussing on talk or dev is probably good too,
(12:25:27 PM) _chrisfl: One of the big questions is that potentially so much propably needs to be sorted, we might be better finding a better model set and starting from there.
(12:25:38 PM) stevenfeldman: toffehoff: good suggestion re osmf
(12:25:52 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: not limit, I think. The discussion might encourage more members to join. But consider the source of discussion?
(12:26:22 PM) apmon: toffehoff: Including the wider community would be imho better
(12:26:29 PM) rweait1: _chrisfl: getting a UK business lawyer in on this early may help with that sort of decision?
(12:26:50 PM) apmon: we don't want to give the impression of osmf not enganging the community any more than there already is.
(12:27:02 PM) rweait1: apmon: toffehoff: indeed. the OSMF, board and WGs only exist to serve the community.
(12:27:54 PM) rweait1: Anything SWG needs to know about AoA before AoA can carry on?
(12:27:55 PM) toffehoff: But we're talking about AoA, boring legal stuff on how the Foundation functions.
(12:27:55 PM) apmon: so giving regular updates to e.g. talk / forums / blogs is imho important even if it doesn't interest many. The impression of being open is what counts
(12:28:06 PM) rweait1: Anything AoA needs from SWG before carrying on?
(12:28:52 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: we shouldn't say "you aren't interested in this". We should say, "if you are interested in this, join us at ..."
(12:28:52 PM) apmon: toffehoff: The way voting for board members works and who can join OSMF and similar things is not only "boring legal" although it eventually has to be coined that way
(12:29:12 PM) stevenfeldman: I can recommend a UK commercial lawyer, he won't do for zero but he might be fairly low cost if I ask him
(12:29:34 PM) toffehoff: But we should be carefull that non-Foundation members are hijacking the discussion....
(12:29:45 PM) toffehoff: Discussion can be done in the open.
(12:30:23 PM) toffehoff: But if someone within the community have strong opinions about AoA, but is not willing to become a member.....
(12:30:23 PM) apmon: If they are valid community concerns, then being a member or not of the Foundation shouldn't matter.
(12:30:27 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: participating in the discussion is welcome. Hijacking is not, regardless of source. I see this as a non-issue.
(12:30:29 PM) stevenfeldman: discussion can be open, formualtion of recommendations should be by SWG and voting by foundation members
(12:31:02 PM) toffehoff: stevenfeldman: don't forget board
(12:31:14 PM) toffehoff: :-)
(12:31:18 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: And board of course. Anything AoA needs from SWG before carrying on?
(12:31:37 PM) stevenfeldman: toffehoff: of course I meant to add the board to that :)
(12:31:57 PM) toffehoff: If anyone knows about lawyer ....
(12:32:16 PM) stevenfeldman: Do we have funds for this?
(12:32:18 PM) toffehoff: I'm also trying to find one via Mikel's contacts.
(12:32:33 PM) toffehoff: yes
(12:32:40 PM) rweait1: I'm sure SWg put "legal" in our budget request...
(12:32:47 PM) toffehoff: hence the budgeting procedure ;-)
(12:33:17 PM) rweait1: anything to minute here other than update from AoA?
(12:33:25 PM) stevenfeldman: I will talk to someone I know and report back next meeting but we must rpt must get a clear set of questions/issues before engaging with him
(12:33:30 PM) rweait1: next AoA meeting?
(12:33:34 PM) toffehoff: Monday
(12:33:41 PM) toffehoff: 16 UTC
(12:34:26 PM) Firefishy: wait.
(12:34:44 PM) ***toffehoff hitting the brakes.
(12:34:54 PM) Firefishy: toffehoff: What is wrong with the 2 pro bono lawyers who have spoken to LWG?
(12:35:23 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: Firefishy, perhaps in email?
(12:35:38 PM) Firefishy: Lets spend money only if obsolutely needed. It is donated money after all :-)
(12:35:41 PM) rweait1: but firstly, this will want a commercial lawyer.
(12:35:52 PM) stevenfeldman: if we have a pro bono lawyer who knows Uk NFP law then we can go with that, strike previous offer of action d:)
(12:35:57 PM) toffehoff: Might be interesting. But we need someone specialized in non-profit organisation-structures.
(12:36:11 PM) Firefishy: cool.
(12:36:18 PM) rweait1: for discussion on strategic@ list, please?
(12:36:32 PM) toffehoff: Next?
(12:36:41 PM) rweait1: front Page?
(12:36:54 PM) rweait1: Anybody do any parent-testing?
(12:37:10 PM) ***rweait1 steps back from volunteer line.
(12:37:37 PM) toffehoff: parent-testing?
(12:38:03 PM) apmon: toffehoff: a very simple form of usability testign
(12:38:13 PM) toffehoff: OK.
(12:38:35 PM) toffehoff: Nothing hi-tech :-)
(12:38:41 PM) stevenfeldman: just maxed out this week but will try to mum test next week and also wife test which is even more challenging
(12:38:53 PM) toffehoff: Let me dig something up.
(12:39:04 PM) toffehoff: I've asked someone about a year ago.
(12:39:06 PM) apmon: No, just asking your "parents" and see where they struggle
(12:39:46 PM) toffehoff: Do we have a set of questions?
(12:40:19 PM) toffehoff: What should my "parents" be doing?
(12:40:39 PM) rweait1: fix their street name. Add a park.
(12:40:47 PM) rweait1: add a walking trail.
(12:40:58 PM) toffehoff: Ah, editing that is....
(12:40:59 PM) rweait1: name their business building.
(12:41:05 PM) rweait1: "using OSM"
(12:41:18 PM) rweait1: really Anything though.
(12:41:31 PM) stevenfeldman: Most of that stuff is quite intimidating even for the web savvy generation
(12:41:42 PM) rweait1: even have them look at osm.org. If they say "What is this?" we need to work on it.
(12:42:27 PM) rweait1: so perhaps it should be somebody at least Curious about OSM.
(12:42:58 PM) rweait1: Find a geocacher and ask them to put OSM map on their GPS. (Just try and find that info! Hah!)
(12:43:12 PM) toffehoff: Basic tasks like: find the street you live in.
(12:43:19 PM) apmon: concrete things like "Oh, I was looking for the search bar. I expected it to be at X but it wasn't there", would imho be the most helpful (as easier to enact on) but everything else can be helpful too
(12:43:44 PM) rweait1: apmon: that presupposes that there should be a search bar. ;-)
(12:44:51 PM) rweait1: Should SWG "Do Something" about this? What's next? Do we do test ourselves, commission someone to do it? or just drop it or what?
(12:45:22 PM) toffehoff: OK: can everyone ask someone to find something on the map?
(12:45:23 PM) apmon: rweait1: Well take a different example then. "I was wanting to add a highway, but it was labeled motorway which confused me". "Simple" things like that
(12:46:39 PM) rweait1: about ten minutes to go.
(12:47:15 PM) toffehoff: Can we set out a task to everyone of us to ask at least one person to use osm.org? Depending on his/her knowledge ask him/her to do specific tasks on the website.
(12:47:30 PM) toffehoff: ??
(12:47:38 PM) rweait1: toffehoff: not me.
(12:48:10 PM) rweait1: front page sub-committee?
(12:48:12 PM) toffehoff: everyone except rweait1 then?
(12:48:29 PM) toffehoff: Is there such a sub-commitee?
(12:48:31 PM) rweait1: how many of us are talking here? ;-)
(12:48:51 PM) rweait1: That's my question. What next? how do we do this?
(12:49:09 PM) rweait1: Front page will six months of this nonsense. just like AoA.
(12:49:17 PM) rweait1: Do we wan tit to consume each meeting?
(12:49:32 PM) rweait1: How do we let something / anything actually happen?
(12:49:48 PM) apmon: btw. did anyone second last times minutes?
(12:49:48 PM) rweait1: Do we tell the author of the draft to "go Ahead" Looks cool?
(12:50:06 PM) rweait1: apmon, half a second from Chris.
(12:50:20 PM) toffehoff: what draft?
(12:50:53 PM) rweait1: I'll second to close the minutes from last week. But this is the last time I'm writing them then second / proposing them
(12:51:23 PM) rweait1: If we can't approve our own minutes it is time to disband this WG as non-functional.
(12:51:42 PM) rweait1: This is beyond a joke.
(12:52:10 PM) stevenfeldman: I can't help you rweait1 I used up my vote to propose
(12:52:16 PM) rweait1: :-)
(12:52:28 PM) toffehoff: ... and I wasn't present ....
(12:52:34 PM) rweait1: Understood.
(12:52:46 PM) _chrisfl: The irc log matches the minutes,
(12:52:48 PM) rweait1: The people participating are not the problem. ;-)
(12:53:06 PM) toffehoff: Firefishy ? Can you second last weeks minutes?
(12:53:32 PM) toffehoff: TomH maybe?
(12:53:34 PM) Firefishy: I wasn't present for most of the meeting and haven't read the intro summary yet, sorry.
(12:54:02 PM) rweait1: I move to disband SWG as non-functional. Any seconder for this vote?
(12:54:14 PM) toffehoff: _1
(12:54:16 PM) toffehoff: -1
(12:54:19 PM) stevenfeldman: half a second
(12:55:06 PM) Firefishy: The current format is not best.
(12:55:07 PM) toffehoff: I propose to not accept the minutes now, but move it to next weeks meeting...
(12:55:37 PM) rweait1: toffehoff we can do that.
(12:56:10 PM) stevenfeldman: This is ludicrous, if we can't even get a seconder for a set of minutes then what is the point of having a SWG?
(12:56:35 PM) rweait1: Do we have a quorum today? we need seven.
(12:56:48 PM) apmon: rweait1: I could join SWG properly. Then I could help on seconding minutes...
(12:56:56 PM) rweait1: apmon: ;-)
(12:57:06 PM) Firefishy: Just to confirm, it is minutes for last week?
(12:57:14 PM) rweait1: we need a quorum to approve that. Then you are stuck here every week. ;-)
(12:57:17 PM) Firefishy: These: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-04-08
(12:57:29 PM) toffehoff: Firefishy: yes those
(12:57:45 PM) Firefishy: I wasn't present last week and offered my apologies :)
(12:57:51 PM) rweait1: check.
(12:58:22 PM) apmon: rweait1: Yes that is the downside. But I think I can commit to that now.
(12:58:29 PM) ***_chrisfl got a puncture last week :(
(12:58:43 PM) rweait1: I see only five members present today. Are we quorate?
(12:58:55 PM) rweait1: where present = responding.
(12:59:29 PM) rweait1: I move that we put SWG admin at the top of the list for next week.
(12:59:50 PM) toffehoff: What do you mean with admin?
(01:00:03 PM) rweait1: This. Attendance, membership, functionality.
(01:00:09 PM) stevenfeldman: +1 but i will have to send apologies as it is a public holiday in UK and I am determined to take some time off
(01:00:09 PM) toffehoff: OK
(01:00:52 PM) toffehoff: apmon: would you like to become a member of SWG?
(01:01:04 PM) toffehoff: officially ....
(01:01:20 PM) rweait1: I think we can do that on the list and have a quorum.
(01:01:58 PM) apmon: toffehoff: Yes if that is helpful to SWG
(01:02:03 PM) toffehoff: Anyone else not being able to attend next week?
(01:02:09 PM) rweait1: apmon++
(01:02:29 PM) toffehoff: apmon: great!
(01:02:41 PM) toffehoff: Let's put that on the to-do list for next week....
(01:02:57 PM) apmon: OK
(01:03:20 PM) ***Firefishy needs to leave. Sorry guys.
(01:03:22 PM) Firefishy left the room.
(01:03:26 PM) toffehoff: So, only stevenfeldman is not able to make next week....
(01:03:27 PM) rweait1: we ready to close for the day?
(01:03:39 PM) toffehoff: Think we do .....
(01:04:00 PM) rweait1: Off to map a cheese shop and make a cheese sandwich,
(01:04:02 PM) toffehoff: Not the most productive meeting.....
(01:04:08 PM) toffehoff: Enjoy!
(01:04:13 PM) rweait1: we got feedback from board. THat's good.
(01:04:18 PM) toffehoff: :-)
(01:04:23 PM) rweait1: anything else before i cose the log?
(01:04:41 PM) rweait1: have a good week everybody,
(01:04:45 PM) toffehoff: Wishing everyone a nice weekend!
(01:04:50 PM) stevenfeldman: have a good weekend everyone
(01:04:57 PM) rweait1: *** Logging Ended ***