CWG meeting 2020-10-20

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

CWG meeting 2020-10-20

Scheduling poll at https://whenisgood.net/kiswe3p The poll will close on Friday, 16th of October 2020

The meeting has been scheduled for this Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 18:00 London time https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG+meeting%2C+Tuesday+20+October+2020&iso=20201020T18&p1=136&ah=1

  1. Countdown

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=136&iso=20201020T18&msg=CWG%20meeting,%20Tuesday%2020%20October%202020

Please add the topic and your name - order your own topics by importance (high importance first). Feel-free to suggest multiple topics.

Due to time constraints, we might have to talk about a set of the topics. Topics will be reordered.


Poll - Please state your preference regarding audio or text meeting (add your name) Preference for: Voice: Text: Dorothea I have not included video because 1) it requires a good internet connection that some people might not have and 2) it does not scale if CWG grows. Text: Andrew I think text is easier to follow and to read back after the meeting

Participants: 

   Andrew

   Dorothea

   Rory

   Tobias


Chat: D: Hello :) Since Rory is here, let's have the meeting in audio at https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/dor-mt1-8ei-26t

Topic: Do we want to formalise a procedure of joining the CWG? Proposed by: Dorothea Which problem does it attempt to solve? There is no procedure yet. Do we want one? Suggestions for way forward: (if accepted) Preparation of draft.

  • Defining potential information we want to know/ requirements.
  • Defining areas with potential conflicts of interest per applicant (just indicative)
  • Clearly communicating about expectations and (usually) no requirement of frequent engagement.

Self-declared conflict of interest on topic [yes/no]: No. More information: Theoretically I could add whoever I want to the CWG, as I have admin access to the mailing list and the OSMF wiki. So, I would prefer if we have a formal procedure. More questions to ask:

  • How is an "application" approved? Vote, just ask by email?
    • How do we deal with objections to approval, if any?
    • If we decide on vote, are "inactive" CWG members counted in the total?
    • We haven't yet responded to Rebecca and Benjamin wanting to join. Unless someone has a specific objection to them joining, I think we should let them in.


Andrew proposal: Vote, 1 week period. Majority of people who have voted.

Suggestions 

   Jog inactive people (suggested by Tobias).

   Leeway for extenuating circumstances

   Participation in X meetings per 6 months. (suggested by Rory)

   Disclose affiliations (suggested by Tobias) - part of formal process. Also suggestion to put on CWG page [exceptions possible]


Action item: Dorothea to create polls for Rebecca and Ben's applications to join CWG. [see how COI policy discussion goes first]

Topic (best as question): Do we want a conflict of interest policy? Proposed by: Dorothea Which problem does it attempt to solve? We do not have such a policy. Suggestions for way forward: Adopt/modify the board one. Self-declared conflict of interest on topic [yes/no]: More information: I think using the board's COI ( https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy ) is the best option. Easiest and simplest, and why recreate the wheel when OSMF has something that works well. I don't really think we have had a problem so far, and I am not worried about a big problem in the future. Being clear with this policy when people join should prevent it.

Suggestion that the COI policy and updates are decided by people who are not paid/associated with OSM-data using organisations.

I don't think that is fair, I have said that before. I am not paid to be on CWG, I am here because I enjoy communications, writing, and OSM. I also don't think we want to discourage people from participating.

Additional potential clauses

  • Suggestion: People with a CoI are not allowed take part in discussions (OSMF Board policy allows this) I guess it depends on what we count as a COI.
  • Not writting/highlighting an article mentioning your employer a topic that they have a COI, if other people don't agree. I think employer is reasonable, a topic seems too far.
 I think that topics related to your company's core product should also be covered. If your employer is the leading supplier of water beds, then you have a big interest in extolling the benefits of water beds and trying to make water beds into some kind of trend that everyone talks about. Perhaps, but this could be a slippery slope. If a company or org uses OSM data, then everyone would have a conflict. I like how the OSMF Board's COI policy has this explained. Clear, easy, has worked in the past.
 
 I guess my issue here is what we are trying to solve? Is there a worry that someone will write an article and publish it without feedback, about how their org or company is amazing? I don't think that will happen. There are already checks and balances in how we decide what the write, how we edit things, etc.
 * Employer
 * Friend/Family Member
 * Government policy of a country you resided in or are a citizen of (e.g. publishing  something that contradicts official governmemt policy, e.g. disputed borders)
  • People with no coi are involved in writting articles. I think that would narrow our potential writing group too much. Plus articles are edited and changed, multiple people will look at it and give feedback, edits, suggestions. So we could weed out or change things that people think should be changed.

This is supposed to mean that not _only_ people with a CoI are involved in the article, but that they may still help if the rest of us agree. Still too far? I'm not clear here, I think everyone should be involved unless it's specifically about their company or organization or there is some specific COI. 

 * People without a CoI should know that they can edit & change the article. Yes of course. Everyone should be able to.

Suggestions 

   Asking affiliations of people that send posts to CWG.

   Editorial policy.


Next step Proposal, get Andrew on-board, present it to the rest of the group. We should talk to Jinal and others as well, who usually participate but aren't here today.


Agreement that we need a COI policy. The board one seems ok as a basis, and agreement that additional clauses specifically about content production are necessary for the CWG. No agreement on the specifics of these clauses yet. <- correct from everyone's POV? D: ok with me :) I am not sure I agree that we need to go beyond the board's policy but I think we can take a look at other clauses. Again, I am not sure I understand the problem we are trying to solve.


/Participating in writing articles follow the same rules as decision making./

Topic (best as question): What kind of content do we promote besides official updates, and how? Proposed by: Tobias Which problem does it attempt to solve? Some of the concerns about CoI relate to which kind of content we publish. Suggestions for way forward: Document the consensus (e.g. as an "editorial policy"), look into ways to implement necessary changes (e.g. "featured" blogs.osm.org content) Self-declared conflict of interest on topic [yes/no]: More information:

Suggestions

  • Highlighting posts by community members
  • Talking with WeeklyOSM

Concern:

  • Filtering/language bias

Other points Changing UI of website to highlight community news. #LCCWG is looking into it and website is OPS remit.

Decision: Not repost articles outside of osmf news, until we develop a clear policy.

Topic (best as question): Which additional tasks would we like to add to the CWG's scope? Proposed by: Tobias Which problem does it attempt to solve? The OSMF board has suggested/offered to expand CWG's scope. We should decide how to respond. Suggestions for way forward: Respond with general reply regarding what we are/aren't interested in, accept board's invitation to a board-CWG meeting Self-declared conflict of interest on topic [yes/no]: More information: Activities which have been suggested:

  • improving certain aspects of the osm.org site, such as landing pages

and the visibility of the foundation's community platforms (wiki/forum/diaries/...)

  • promoting outstanding community content in addition to the "official"

news CWG tends to write about, more pro-active communication about OSM (such as press releases)

  • helping with the production and distribution/sale of OSM goodies - great idea. A shop? T-shirts, stickers for sale, etc? Can also give out stickers but a shop would be a nice fundraiser. I'd love to buy an official OSM shirt. Maybe could sell old SOTM shirts? ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Promotional_Material_Programme :) )
    • Yes, I think a separate shop as a fundraiser in addition to the promotional material programme.
  • Press releases to geo/FOSS groups and media outside the OSM ecosystem (related to point above)
  • Tell stories about OSM use by communities, orgs, etc?
  • Posting recaps of regional SOTMs, written by that SOTM's organizing group
  • More blog content overall
   Agreement that tasks have to be initiated by CWG members that have the capacity/time to do the tasks.

   Agreement that if someone wants to do something CWG-related, they can do it without the need to become CWG members.

   Agreed to have a board-CWG meering.



Rory's suggested Editorial policy about content to be on OSM(F) blogs: (just an idea) Content should be honest, truthful, and the goal is to promote OSM first, not to promote somethiong else first. For example an article that reads like the press release, or advertisment, for something else would not be appropriate. The amount of content should reflect how big that topic is to, and in, OSM. The contents should reflect general, commonly held OSM views on the topic, and should not stronly promote one side of controversial topics, while realising that OSM does have stances of some topics, such as open data. When writing about something that affects you personally, ot outside OSM, be upfront & open about your connection to the topic.

(Email to CWG)

Subject: Feedback asked for suggested CWG CoI policy

Hello :)

One of the topics at today's CWG meeting was having a Conflict of Interest (CoI) policy. Notes are on the pad https://osm-cwg.pads.ccc.de/2020-10-meeting-agenda?

Participants agreed that we need a CoI policy. The OSMF Board one¹ seems ok as a basis, so we decided that it should apply to the CWG. Hopefully that's ok for everyone?

Most people present also agreed that additional clauses specifically about content production are necessary for the CWG, but there was some disagreement. The additional clauses that were suggested are:

  • CWG members with a CoI on one of the topics of an article (or other content) may only participate in the drafting process if the members without a CoI agree.
  • There must be people without a CoI involved in the creation of the article.

To come to a decision, our intention is to put each one of the suggested clauses to vote after some email discussion. What are your thoughts? Are there any additional clauses that you would like to see in the policy..?

¹ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Topic: Meeting frequency

Suggestion for every two months.

Topic: Blogposts about newly-joined local chapters (suggestion by Dorothea)

Rory to email new LCs to ask for a blog post introducing themselves to be published on osm blog. Good way to get blog content. It used to be done for new LCs. It's another benefit of an org to becoming a LC.

(Email to CWG)

Hello,

The notes of today's CWG meeting are at https://osm-cwg.pads.ccc.de/2020-10-meeting-agenda?

Topic: Do we want to formalise a procedure of joining the CWG? Decisions 

   Jog inactive people. #Leeway for extenuating circumstances

   Participation in X meetings per 6 months. 

   Disclose affiliations - part of formal process. Also suggestion to put on CWG page [exceptions possible].

Action items:

  • Dorothea to create polls for Rebecca and Ben's applications to join CWG.
  • Dorothea to email the CWG.

Topic: Do we want a conflict of interest policy? Agreement that we need a COI policy. The board one seems ok as a basis, and agreement (not by all) that additional clauses specifically about content production are necessary for the CWG. No agreement on the specifics of these clauses yet. Decisions 

   Ask other CWG members for feedback/additional clauses.

   Vote on suggested clauses [additional to the board policy].

Topic: What kind of content do we promote besides official updates, and how? Decision: Not repost articles outside of osmf news, until we develop a clear policy. Topic: Which additional tasks would we like to add to the CWG's scope? 

   Agreement that tasks have to be initiated by CWG members that have the capacity/time to do the tasks.

   Agreement that if someone wants to do something CWG-related, they can do it without the need to become CWG members.

   Agreement to have a board-CWG meeting.

Meeting frequency: Suggestion for every two months.

Retrieved from "https://osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=CWG_meeting_2020-10-20&oldid=9155"