Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-10-07

* 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!