CWG meeting 2012-09-24

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

Communication Working Group meeting on Monday 24th September 2012


  • iOS offerings - apps list and developer docs
  • MapBox Knight grant funding (mis)communication


  • Harry Wood
  • Richard Wait
  • Jonathan Bennett

IRC log:

20:58 rweait: ready for CWG here, or on skype?
20:58 harry-wood: I'm easy either way
20:59 harry-wood: henk much prefers voice
20:59 JonathanB: I'd prefer here, given remnants of a cough
20:59 harry-wood: but not sure if he's here today
20:59 rweait: Do we have an agenda?
21:01 harry-wood: there's a few things to talk about
21:01 JonathanB: Should we approve last week's minutes?
21:01 harry-wood: approve minutes? didn't do that in while
21:02 harry-wood: Actually do we have last weeks minutes?
21:03 JonathanB: Well, you know how it is. New board. Should probably try to impress them.
21:03 rweait: I don't see them in the list.
21:03 rweait: and only one approved since last year.
21:04 harry-wood: yeah I don't find the approving minutes thing all that useful
21:04 harry-wood: but it' something to kick off a meeting with I suppose
21:05 rweait: We have the logs, but I don't see a summary of votes taken. That would be the thing to approve, no?
21:05 harry-wood: ah you're talking about AGM minutes?
21:06 rweait: no, CWG minutes.
21:06 harry-wood: We were voting on something to do with license change?
21:06 harry-wood: has blotted all of this from his memory
21:07 rweait: I don't thinks so. Moslty we just get on with it.
21:07 JonathanB: harry-wood: Just looked back through the logs -- you weren't here
21:07 rweait: I'm sure I was to send notes last week to WGs and BOard offering CWG assistance in communication.
21:08 harry-wood: Oh right yeah. Sorry I was in Amsterdam last Monday
21:08 rweait: I did send a note to board. I didn't to other WGs afaics
21:08 rweait: No response from board.
21:08 harry-wood: what was the note about?
21:08 JonathanB: rweait: Yep
21:08 harry-wood: sorry ignore that last question
21:08 rweait: harry-wood: trying to get board and WGs to send stuff to us to publish.
21:09 rweait: So CWG can have nice things / accomplishments to talk about
21:09 rweait: generally offering to help board / WGs to communicate more.
21:10 rweait: So what's next?
21:10 harry-wood: I think there is some publicity we should be working now, related to the ios6 maps hooharr
21:10 harry-wood: or not so much publicity as getting some of our documentation iphone apps in order
21:10 harry-wood: discussed in IRC this week, but maybe CWG can think of some structure for this.
21:11 harry-wood: The apps listings are unclear
21:11 harry-wood: and documentation on using OSM within apps (for ios developers) could be clearer
21:11 harry-wood: e.g. perhaps we could make a new section about this
21:12 rweait: Perhaps we can suggest to the community that is a fertile garden to sow?
21:13 harry-wood: yes. Well there's lots to improve on the wiki. We've got this list:
21:13 JonathanB: FYI -- I own which could easily turn into a more concise version of what's available on the wiki
21:14 harry-wood: could be good
21:14 harry-wood: speaking of which is undergoing some development (nice redesign by some mapbox designers proposed)
21:15 rweait: Wow. New infrastructure! ;-/
21:16 harry-wood: (discussion here: )
21:16 harry-wood: Thre's lots of fairly basic documentation work needs doing on the list of iphone apps
21:17 rweait: Should OSMF make a statement about the misleading claims of MapBox and Knight Foundation?
21:17 harry-wood:
21:17 rweait: Knight did not donate to OSM,
21:17 rweait: and MapBox has nothing to do with OSM infrastructure.
21:18 rweait: and to my knowledge, OSMF was not involved in any way in MapBox grant from Knight
21:18 harry-wood: Should OSMF make a statement? I don't think so. It's a bit misleading, but why be negative about it?
21:18 rweait: Any claim that mapBox vapourware is OSM Infrastructure seems "over reaching" at very best.
21:19 rweait: we must be concerned about any confusion in the market regarding our trademark. we don't want to get "Kleenexed"
21:19 harry-wood: kleenexed?
21:20 rweait: When you loose trademark rights because your name becomes "generic" by inappropriate use.
21:21 rweait: Back to a clarification statement.
21:21 rweait: Should we offer a clarification to everybody. Nope that's not us. They aren't we.
21:22 rweait: Or must we send the misbehaving children to the naughty step?
21:22 JonathanB: rweait: Do we have examples of where, shall we say, their language has been looser than it could be?
21:22 rweait: I think further misrepresentation will demand a sanction from OSMF>
21:23 rweait: JonathanB: their blog title, their annoucement to talk@ ...
21:23 harry-wood: The point has already been made, through backchannels, that the community is uncomfortable with the conflation grant to MapBox != grant to OpenStreetMap.
21:24 rweait: "[OSM-talk] Knight awards $575k to improve OpenStreetMap infrastructure"
21:24 harry-wood: As for expecting the members of the public or journalists to understand the distinction might as well forget it.
21:24 rweait: They don't seem to have recieved that message. as ther behaviour hasn;t changed
21:25 rweait: Well that just it. The public and journalists CANT get it right in the face of headlines full of well, bald faced over-statements
21:25 rweait: Whcih back channels?
21:26 harry-wood: Well I saw twmc got roasted on IRC. Chillly bitched loudly on twitter
21:26 harry-wood: All of this in the face of some news which to my mind is overwhealmingly awesome
21:26 rweait: tmcw is a nice guy I'm sure.
21:26 rweait: I've met a bunch of these folks.
21:26 rweait: As a corporation, they seem like poison to thecommunity.
21:26 JonathanB: I don't think anyones intentions are less than good, but the road to hell and all that...
21:27 rweait: as individuals, they're just fine
21:27 rweait: Perhaps they have a rogue marketer writing this nonsense and they can't the the leash on tight...
21:28 rweait: I know that they have at least one person there clued-up enough to understand that they don't have access to OSM Infrastructure.
21:28 harry-wood: I haven't seen anything from MapBox to suggest they're like poison to the community. The worst I can imagine is that they have a slight chillng effect on volunteer development because they're developing awesome stuff at a spectacular pace.
21:28 harry-wood: In future they may threaten to overshadow things
21:29 rweait: bingo.
21:30 rweait: They're making a huge media splash now, by claiming to be things that they aren't. Remember when Arrington climed that CloudMade owned OSM?
21:30 JonathanB: There does appear to be a lack of awareness -- an assumption that whatever they do will just be accepted because "it's better, right?"
21:30 harry-wood: I don't think there's anything at this juncture to justify any kind of public snubbing "statement"
21:30 rweait: definite lack of awareness, based on the questions I've had from some of their folks.
21:31 JonathanB: OK -- so maybe more private pressure to be more careful with their words for now?
21:31 rweait: If they wrote a grant bid to Knight like their headlines after the fact, would that be fraudulent?
21:31 harry-wood: I was going to suggest a positive blog post on the matter, but maybe there's a way to phrase a blog post which will also serve as a clarification (without being negative)
21:32 rweait: Who's going to contact them with a cease and desist?
21:33 harry-wood: But give the arguments after we put out a positive blog about apple I'm going to suggest that the CWG shouldn't be wholely in charge of choosing the OSMF position on this
21:33 rweait: send a draft to board for approval / revision?
21:34 harry-wood: I'm quite happy to punt this issue up the chain of command. We maybe want a blog post, maybe want an official back channel message to MapBox on the matter. Leave it for the board to decide
21:35 rweait: or just send a clarification to Knight Foundation with cc: MapBox?
21:35 JonathanB: I think we need to know the board's position, whatever else
21:36 rweait: mackerski, care to offer an opinion?
21:37 rweait: or fake_mackerski? ^^
21:37 harry-wood: Personally I don't think it's a big deal. Positives massively outweighed by the negatives
21:39 harry-wood: TechCrunch screwed up their article about it. But made corrections unlike the stupid "CloudMade's OpenStreetMap" episode
21:41 JonathanB: There is a point that we shouldn't have people saying "we've given money to OSM", when what they've actually done is give money to someone else who may produce something that OSM finds useful, maybe not.
21:41 rweait: I understand how it happened. They need to add OpenStreetMap to the article to help their SEO. Nobody cares otherwise. But that nonsense about core infrastructure and the OSM community? Sheesh.
21:42 rweait: 'Zackly
21:42 rweait: Now will they campaign for more grants based on "To support OSM you must give to MapBox"?
21:42 rweait: That smells a lot like fraud.
21:43 rweait: One can support OSM directly by giving to OpenStreetMap Foundation.
21:43 harry-wood: Well yeah no see that's just massive overreaction
21:43 harry-wood: to talk about "fraud"
21:44 harry-wood: MapBox have their message slightly off, in a way which they probably didn't anticipate anyone would have an issue with
21:44 rweait: Hold on. You think it isn't fruad to claim that "to support OSM you should give to MapBox" They haven't done that , but if they did?
21:44 rweait: They are claiming that Knight is supporting OpenStreetMap, by funding MapBox. That's very very similar.
21:45 harry-wood: I don't think they're aiming to mislead anyone deliberately
21:45 rweait: I think that they are trying to claim as much insight and access as they can, and much more than thy actually have.
21:45 rweait: That is misleading.
21:46 rweait: It HAS mislead the press into other equally bad headlines
21:47 rweait: Who's going to draft something for the board?
21:47 harry-wood: We know the press are easily mislead. TechCrunch even called them "OpenBox" instead of "MapBox" completely confused
21:47 rweait: :-)
21:47 rweait: par.
21:48 harry-wood: I'll email the board. Copy us in. And point them at this IRC log
21:48 rweait: Cool.
21:48 rweait: Thanks.
21:48 harry-wood: Let's talk about something else
21:48 rweait: yes, lets.
21:48 harry-wood: Another issue to stir up...
21:48 harry-wood: vaguely comms related

Redacted discussion

21:54 harry-wood: Also for legal reasons I propose we redact this discussion
21:55 rweait: okay, you want to take care of the copy / filter / paste?
21:55 harry-wood: ok
21:55 harry-wood: I'll email LWG then I guess
21:56 rweait: JonathanB: anything to add before we go?
21:56 JonathanB: Not this week
21:56 rweait: okay, all done then?
21:56 harry-wood: Got a pub meet-up tomorrow, so I'll chat with the top secret London pub working group on all these issues :-)
21:57 rweait: I'm jealous! :-)
21:57 rweait: give my regards.
21:57 harry-wood: I'll be seeing Andy, Grant and Tom at least
21:57 rweait: ttfn.
21:57 harry-wood: ok
21:57 harry-wood: see you next time!