CWG meeting 2012-05-14

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • Henk Hoff
  • Richard Weait


(03:50:20 PM) toffehoff [~toffehoff@] entered the room.
(04:01:51 PM) rweait: We ready for CWG?
(04:02:21 PM) rweait: RichardF, toffehoff?
(04:02:33 PM) toffehoff: Hi!
(04:02:47 PM) toffehoff: Going through presentations for SotM.
(04:03:09 PM) toffehoff: Was a bit distracted ;-)
(04:03:31 PM) toffehoff: Jonathan has car trouble.
(04:03:41 PM) toffehoff: RichardF is probably running a bit late.
(04:04:05 PM) toffehoff: Any sign of Harry?
(04:04:51 PM) rweait: I've not seen him,
(04:05:24 PM) toffehoff: So, just the two of us ?
(04:05:26 PM) rweait: He doesn't seem to be on #osm
(04:05:58 PM) rweait: I guess so until RichardF makes it in.
(04:06:03 PM) rweait: So what's up?
(04:06:48 PM) toffehoff: Now going through the first batch of submitted presentations of SotM.
(04:07:08 PM) toffehoff: There are lot of interesting stuff in them.
(04:07:39 PM) toffehoff: Most likely also going to have a Japanese track this year.
(04:07:42 PM) rweait: Anything CWG needs to take action on?
(04:08:55 PM) toffehoff: A general blurb about sponsoring opportunities, 2nd round of call for presentations and such would be nice.
(04:10:23 PM) rweait: You're going to post it on
(04:10:55 PM) rweait: I'd think you could post it on blog and or ogd as well.
(04:11:20 PM) rweait: Feel free to ping me once you post it and I can link from the others if you want the help.
(04:11:28 PM) toffehoff: Thanks.
(04:11:54 PM) toffehoff: We're thinking of posting a "why come to Japan" on a regular basis.
(04:12:03 PM) rweait: Does sotm team need any more help of volunteers?
(04:12:06 PM) toffehoff: Sushi, Mt Fuji has already been done.
(04:12:10 PM) rweait: s/of/or/
(04:12:25 PM) rweait: I like the idea of regular articles.
(04:12:42 PM) toffehoff: I'm tempted to say yes: we need more volunteers.
(04:12:56 PM) toffehoff: Although I do not know the answer to the next question yet.
(04:13:05 PM) rweait: I'm not really the "audience" for them, because you really can't keep me away from a SotM.  :-)
(04:13:26 PM) toffehoff: It's fun aways ;-)
(04:13:45 PM) toffehoff: And also trying to blog a bit about the upcoming presentations.
(04:14:22 PM) toffehoff: I have to check with team to see what kind of people we could need in the SotM team.
(04:14:46 PM) rweait: Who is taking the leadership role on the sotm team this year?
(04:14:52 PM) toffehoff: Are you a karaoke type of person?
(04:14:57 PM) rweait: :-)
(04:15:06 PM) rweait: Not if I want to keep any of my friends.  :-)
(04:15:19 PM) toffehoff: You have any friends in Japan?
(04:15:24 PM) toffehoff: :-)
(04:15:33 PM) rweait: A few. :-)
(04:15:57 PM) toffehoff: Leadership is with me (for international side) and Daniel Kastl (for Japan side).
(04:16:12 PM) toffehoff: Daniel is picking up more and more things (luckily)
(04:16:45 PM) rweait: is sotm team able to meet regularly?
(04:16:51 PM) toffehoff: Sponsoring is Deb, website is Floris.
(04:16:59 PM) toffehoff: Yes, bi-weekly
(04:17:29 PM) toffehoff: Although difficult for Deb. (it's midnight at her place when we start the meeting).
(04:17:45 PM) toffehoff: ... and I just dropped out of bed....
(04:18:05 PM) toffehoff: Grr... timezones ...
(04:18:33 PM) rweait: Yeah, that's tough.
(04:18:59 PM) rweait: nothing for CWG right now then? What was this email about a comms plan?
(04:19:10 PM) toffehoff: Ah yes.
(04:19:24 PM) toffehoff: yesterday we had a board meeting.
(04:19:48 PM) toffehoff: talked about lot of things we need to organize
(04:20:23 PM) toffehoff: One of the things that is still unclear is the communication procedures?
(04:20:39 PM) toffehoff: When are we sending out an official OSMF statement.
(04:20:52 PM) toffehoff: How is that one made?
(04:21:05 PM) toffehoff: Which channels
(04:22:09 PM) rweait: Anything else? Or are you waiting for a reply?
(04:22:13 PM) rweait: :-)
(04:22:25 PM) toffehoff: Well, along that line ....
(04:23:26 PM) toffehoff: Eg: when we're going to talk about Apple in the press, who is doing that, who needs to know, who has the info ....
(04:24:33 PM) toffehoff: Like in: I was handling the Apple case within board. I want to know about what other board members (or OSMF officials) are saying about this in the press.
(04:25:34 PM) toffehoff: We're all doing our best, but with the lack of a clear policy we tend to tumble over eachother.
(04:26:06 PM) rweait: How so? I mean, What's the problem?
(04:26:37 PM) rweait: or, more to the point of this meeting, how does this relate to CWG?
(04:26:38 PM) toffehoff: The problem: we had several incidents recently.
(04:28:33 PM) toffehoff: CWG is handling the comms within OSMF
(04:29:06 PM) toffehoff: Having a policy on comms would most likely be initiated by CWG.
(04:29:29 PM) rweait: hmm, more from OSMF to world. I don't think CWG has the mandate or abliit to handle communication between groups. That would be MT or board, wouldn't it?
(04:30:15 PM) rweait: Just my perspective, of course, but CWG assists other WG to communicate to community + world, I think.
(04:30:23 PM) toffehoff: Then I would think we need a good talk about what the role of CWG is.
(04:30:33 PM) rweait: Mostly, other WGs seem uninterested in communicating.  :-)
(04:30:49 PM) rweait: Hey, I said it was just my perspective. :-)
(04:31:02 PM) rweait: Now, what are these incidents that concern you?
(04:32:10 PM) toffehoff: The vandalism case related to Google; the Apple announcement w/o checking legal.
(04:32:47 PM) rweait: I don't think CWG was involved in either of those.
(04:32:54 PM) toffehoff: and some other things I do not want to discuss in public.
(04:33:24 PM) rweait: okay, should we go into those two?
(04:33:42 PM) toffehoff: Discussing the incidents does not solve it.
(04:34:09 PM) toffehoff: The lack of a common procedure who to handle comms with the outside world is the basic problem.
(04:34:50 PM) rweait: I'm still trying to figure out what are the problems that concern you and how they relate to CWG? wasn't the G thing just the actions of two board members?
(04:34:53 PM) toffehoff: Again, we're all doing our best, but there is no single line written down on the procedure.
(04:35:46 PM) rweait: For the G thing, might CWG have done it differently? Perhaps. But it was never in front of CWG.
(04:36:02 PM) toffehoff: The problem is: we do not have a procedure. We always need to invent the wheel again.
(04:36:24 PM) rweait: So are you suggesting a comms policy, not just a CWG comms policy?
(04:36:31 PM) toffehoff: Eg: should every press release or statement go through CWG for checks?
(04:36:45 PM) toffehoff: Yes, a general comms policy.
(04:37:35 PM) rweait: I'm sure CWG is happy to help when asked. Do we need to force all to use CWG as a venue / editor / something.  ? :-)
(04:38:57 PM) toffehoff: Could be: eg if we want to have a consistent tone of voice in our comms.
(04:39:09 PM) toffehoff: CWG knows what channels we have and how to use them best.
(04:39:56 PM) rweait: as far as having CWG assist other groups with their comms, I'd say, "yes, that's why we're here."
(04:40:09 PM) rweait: I think we've made that offer via MT?
(04:40:18 PM) toffehoff: Board is asking to CWG to draft an OSMF comms policy
(04:40:24 PM) rweait: do you think that message was received ?
(04:40:57 PM) rweait: draft it. SO it would apply to other WGs?
(04:41:24 PM) toffehoff: Like the spending policy that Oliver has put up.
(04:42:02 PM) toffehoff: If you want to have expenses reimbursed: this is the procedure to do it and you can find it there on the website.
(04:42:21 PM) toffehoff: And this is what we will reimburse and this not.
(04:43:01 PM) rweait: Who would follow the comms policy? Who are the "OSMF officials"?
(04:43:52 PM) toffehoff: Board, MT, WG, the whole lot.
(04:43:55 PM) rweait: What is the current feeling about the way CWG has operated for the last 2 years?
(04:44:31 PM) toffehoff: It is not a judgement on how CWG has functioned.
(04:44:43 PM) rweait: I think I see that. I'm just asking. :-)
(04:45:11 PM) toffehoff: Board wants to have procedure in writing we can all point to: that's the way we do it.
(04:46:39 PM) rweait: any thoughts on schedule or deadlines?
(04:47:20 PM) rweait: any thoughts on enforcement or sanctions?
(04:47:50 PM) rweait: The expenses thing seems pretty simple. "Follow the rules or pay from your pocket." :-)
(04:48:02 PM) rweait: this is likely to have more personal opinion involved.
(04:48:14 PM) toffehoff: Sure.
(04:48:30 PM) toffehoff: But having nothing in writing is even worse.
(04:48:53 PM) toffehoff: "Oh... I thought this would be ok"
(04:49:27 PM) rweait: I want to be sure I understand. This policy draft has been requested by the board?
(04:49:42 PM) toffehoff: yes.
(04:49:55 PM) rweait: And when do they thing it would be reasonable to have a draft?
(04:49:57 PM) toffehoff: unanimously
(04:50:03 PM) rweait: thing-think.
(04:50:27 PM) toffehoff: When would the CWG think they would have one?
(04:50:42 PM) rweait: I wouldn't know. It's just us chickens today. :-)
(04:51:09 PM) toffehoff: I was actually thinking to ask the other Richard to take that upon him.
(04:51:21 PM) rweait: um hmm.
(04:51:58 PM) rweait: So, no deadline, just "as soon as practical." ?
(04:52:05 PM) toffehoff: To put it bluntly: I'm not going to draft it: way to much other stuff on my plate.
(04:52:30 PM) toffehoff: We want to have a deadline that is reasonable.
(04:53:01 PM) toffehoff: If you ask the board for a deadline, you'll probably get "next week" as answer.
(04:53:19 PM) toffehoff: We both know, that that is not going to work.
(04:53:49 PM) rweait: Why do you think that the board is incapable of being reasonable?
(04:54:26 PM) toffehoff: That's not what I'm saying, and you know that.
(04:55:19 PM) toffehoff: Board wants this asap. But realizes that CWG has people on board who have not all day to work on it.
(04:55:45 PM) toffehoff: Question is: board wants it asap, when could they have it.
(04:56:25 PM) rweait: Well, we've managed to fritter away the best part of an hour on something that you want to assign to somebody who isn't here. So perhaps this discussion can move to email rather than waiting until next Monday?
(04:56:51 PM) toffehoff: Unless you want to do it .... All fine with me.
(04:57:50 PM) rweait: nice comment on the award, just now. "The idea behind this award proves worthy of Ulf's memory. Thank you OSMF for setting it up and let's honour the memory of our OSM fellow."
(04:58:38 PM) rweait: I'm happy to help with the draft, if I can.
(04:58:51 PM) toffehoff: nice comment indeed.
(04:59:21 PM) toffehoff: Only thing I can say is: I'm not going to do it .... ;-)
(04:59:32 PM) rweait: okay.
(04:59:37 PM) rweait: Anything else for CWG today?
(04:59:44 PM) toffehoff: I also heard there was great progress on the rebuild.
(04:59:47 PM) rweait: anything from other WGs for publishing?
(04:59:59 PM) rweait: oh, that's good news.
(05:00:27 PM) toffehoff: Good part of the relation-test that where failing is now passing.
(05:00:56 PM) rweait: nice.
(05:00:59 PM) toffehoff: Some statistics Matt mentioned yesterday
(05:01:10 PM) toffehoff: 11.000 line of test-code
(05:01:21 PM) toffehoff: 1.000 lines of actual rebuild code
(05:02:13 PM) toffehoff: Way much more than initially expected.
(05:02:50 PM) rweait: Wow.
(05:03:03 PM) rweait: I haven't seen that published. Was that just at the board meeting?
(05:03:04 PM) toffehoff: Hence it took a bit longer ....
(05:03:10 PM) toffehoff: yes, board meeting.
(05:03:25 PM) rweait: folks will be interested to know about that.  :-)
(05:03:52 PM) rweait: I'll ping Matt and Dermot about another wednesday announcement.
(05:03:53 PM) toffehoff: Minutes are not up yet. I wait for approval of other board members about text.
(05:03:59 PM) toffehoff: Sure.
(05:04:06 PM) rweait: same time next week?
(05:04:15 PM) rweait: (for CWG)
(05:04:19 PM) toffehoff: Maybe Matt can give you some more details statistics.
(05:04:26 PM) toffehoff: Lemme look
(05:04:34 PM) toffehoff: Yes, I can make that.
(05:04:40 PM) rweait: see you then.
(05:04:42 PM) toffehoff: Till next week then