* apmon: hello everyone Eugene: Hello everyone! RichardF: hello Eugene and apmon * -> wonderchook has joined osm-strategic RichardF: hello wonderchook too wonderchook: ha wonderchook: I'm only here until my flight boards * RichardF phones up wonderchook's airline and mentions an unspecified terrorist threat RichardF: for anyone who hasn't seen: last time's minutes - http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-09-23 RichardF: first off, is anyone volunteering to log this meeting? wonderchook: not I says the person who has a flight that is apparently boarding early wonderchook: sorry guys wonderchook: I'll not be traveling when the next one takes place wonderchook: bye! * <- wonderchook has disconnected RichardF: heh RichardF: anyone volunteering to log? padded_mackerski: I can't either - skulking at the back of a lecture with the iPad RichardF: rweait? apmon? RichardF: <tumbleweed> Eugene: OK, I'll log My Opera just don't produce beautiful logs so it would be hard to make it readable in wiki. RichardF: : Eugene: excellent, thank you. beautiful is not a problem * apmon needs to figure out if my irc produces proper logs... RichardF: Mikel can't attend this week's meeting because he's getting married RichardF: so I've (been) volunteered to chair it instead. RichardF: last week's action point was "Come up with concrete suggestions with how to expand this discussion and strategic planning process to the whole OSMF. Perhaps through the a recommendation to the management team" - which in turn was set as this week's agenda. RichardF: so, first, has anyone brought concrete suggestions along? Eugene: Sorry for interruption - do we have quorum? RichardF: we have six including two board members - I believe that's quorate TomH: do we have such a thing defined? Eugene: TomH: it definitely should be somewhere... apmon: I think we did quite a while ago, but can't remember the numbers RichardF: we've had meetings in the past with six, so if this isn't quorate we should probably scrub some past meetings too apmon: As long as we don't vote on decisions, does it matter? RichardF: arguably not. anyone against proceeding? TomH: quite - it all sound overly formal to me for working group padded_mackerski: Fine by me if we go ahead RichardF: excellent. let's continue. RichardF: so: has anyone else come up with concrete suggestions? before I dive in with one RichardF: ok, I'll take that as a no RichardF: so, a suggestion RichardF: in the definition of SWG on the OSMF site, its remit is stated as: RichardF: SWG does RichardF: Research the available options. RichardF: Provide guidance to other WGs and/or management task force. RichardF: Identifying opportunities for improvement in the activities of OSMF. RichardF: SWG does not RichardF: Handle operational issues, make decisions regarding funding allocation. RichardF: (is not required to) implement policy. RichardF: are we all broadly in agreement with that? (say something even if you agree just for reassurance I'm not talking into a vacuum here ) padded_mackerski: It's a fine start * -> chrisfl_ has joined osm-strategic RichardF: hello chrisfl_ (and congratulations ) apmon: +1 padded_mackerski: We may discover that a change would be valid RichardF: chrisfl_: terribly-formatted log of meeting so far - http://pastebin.com/Hhi8RaGK RichardF: padded_mackerski: indeed we may; but until we do let's continue with that in mind padded_mackerski: Ack RichardF: so, in light of that, I don't think SWG has made significant, minuted progress on the first bullet point, aka "Research the available options" RichardF: we've talked around the subject a fair deal, but not really nailed anything down RichardF: anyone violently disagreeing? Eugene: Unfortunately, no. chrisfl_: thanks sorry about my late appearance RichardF: chrisfl_: understood that you have things on your mind at the moment chrisfl_: indeed RichardF: ok. So in light of that, I think it would be worthwhile for us, as the members of SWG, to compile (from the available sources - mailing lists, blog postings, commentary etc.) ideas that the OSM community, however you define it, has come up with RichardF: in other words: trawl through the bright ideas that people have had, and record them in one central place. no suggestion thus far of an endorsement, just a retrospective sounding of people's visions for OSM. padded_mackerski: Excellent idea Eugene: I'm just afraid it would be long, long list... RichardF: oh yes, absolutely. but there's a few of us here padded_mackerski: In theory, of course, that's a bit like rebuilding the wiki apmon: RichardF: A manually compiled "uservoice" list? padded_mackerski: But in practice I think it can still work RichardF: apmon: yep. but three differences - one is that it's retrospective, i.e. what people have asked for; 2, that we don't just look in one central place; and 3, that we keep it to "strategy/vision" suggestions rather than operational ones RichardF: (a lot of uservoice stuff is "move this to the right" or "support this tag", IYSWIM, and that's not SWG's remit) RichardF: once we've done that - in a month or two - we can then go through the list and assess them against OSMF's wider objective to see what we think should be prioritised RichardF: but that's the second stage; the first is just to record what's there apmon: So strategic being: "How to grow the editor base faster?" Or do other questions fall under strategic? padded_mackerski: I'd suggest expanding real world usage of the data would fit too RichardF: that's a good example of something that's strategic, yep. Something else might be "OSM.org should seek to become a maps.google.com replacement" (not that I personally agree, but it's an opinion that's been voiced). And so on. RichardF: our first task is just to record, so we should probably err on the side of generosity - if we're not sure whether it's strategic, put it in the list. we can whittle it down afterwards RichardF: one reason I think SWG can make a good job of this is that we have, as well as English-speakers, two German-speakers and one Russian-speaker represented here, which should make it more representative than the usual English-only doings of OSMF chrisfl_: sounds good, get everything written down. then filter and group Eugene: I agree. RichardF: great stuff. padded_mackerski: Me too. Specifically it moves the discussion from theory to tangible stuff RichardF: yep, absolutely. RichardF: ok; so shall we take this on as a project for the next fortnight, and report back at the next meeting? (advance disclaimer: I'm not going to be here a fortnight today but I'll still do the homework, and I'm sure you'll cope without me ) padded_mackerski: I'll happily participate RichardF: cool. I'm happy to look through talk@ and the wiki (may God have mercy on my soul) padded_mackerski: I can take some of talk-de RichardF: excellent RichardF: apmon: can you help with talk-de and I guess the German forum too? padded_mackerski: Which is a hard thing to quantify, but let's see Eugene: I'll take RU-forum and other places of the community discussions. RichardF: : Eugene: excellent, thank you. that'll make a big difference. apmon: Yes, I can go through them to see what has been suggested RichardF: ok. so we have, I guess, the three principal areas covered; we can assess at the next meeting if there's anything we've missed. RichardF: and if anyone else spots stuff in the next fortnight, please do jot it down and bring it to the next meeting. Eugene: Anyone for dev@? padded_mackerski: RichardF: Should we designate a place for us all to pour in content as we get it? padded_mackerski: That could stimulate ideas as we go apmon: would be better apmon: it also reduces duplicate effort chrisfl_: i was wondering if we should start (yet another) wiki page RichardF: padded_mackerski, apmon: we can certainly do that. shall we have an SWG scratchpad on the wiki for this? padded_mackerski: Works for MemoServ padded_mackerski: For me * padded_mackerski mutters RichardF: ok, let's do that. RichardF: page created at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Suggestion_review RichardF: I'll get started on rattling through talk@ and the (English-language) wiki over the next week. RichardF: if no-one else has any suggestions or comments, shall we close the meeting for this week with that as our action? padded_mackerski: Yes please RichardF: : Eugene: thank you very much for taking the log RichardF: I'll write a very brief summary post to the strategic list summarising what we've decided - it may rustle up some extra help there too from people who weren't able to be at the meeting RichardF: thank you all for coming and for willingness to help - I'll declare the meeting over!