Working Group Minutes/EWG 2013-10-14

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


IRC nick Real name
gravitystorm Andy Allan
iandees Ian Dees
tmcw Tom MacWright
zere Matt Amos


  • Hack event funding:
    • zere talking to CWG about getting a blog post up.
    • gravitystorm contacting event organisers to survey whether they were aware support was available.
  • Developer documentation:
    • Survey results are in, and show:
      • Average "need for documentation"; OWL, osm2pgsql and Merkaartor were thought the worst.
      • Average "need for developers"; OWL, osm2pgsql and nominatim were thought the most in need.
      • Average numeric "need" product gives the ranking: OWL, osm2pgsql, nominatim, mod_tile/renderd, cgimap, OSRM, Merkaartor, rails_port, osmosis, overpass, iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, (j)XAPI.
    • Note that results were based on a small sample size, and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
    • ACTION: gravitystorm to take a first look at OWL docs.


17:03:04 <zere> minutes of the last meeting:
17:03:15 <zere> please let me know if anything needs fixing
17:04:01 <zere> gravitystorm: you had an action to ask previous hack event organisers about whether they knew about the money available. how did it go?
17:04:12 <gravitystorm> zere: still todo
17:04:26 <gravitystorm> actually typing things into survey monkey in another window
17:06:59 <zere> gravitystorm: cool.
17:07:42 <zere> i talked to harry-wood about putting a blog post up. will let everyone know when we have a draft or something.
17:07:58 <zere> also, the survey of documentation / developer need stuff was interesting.
17:09:00 <zere> we had 17 responses, and taking the average "badness of documentation", we get OWL, osm2pgsql and Merkaartor being the worst.
17:09:26 <gravitystorm> zere: and need for developers?
17:09:53 <zere> although OWL only had 2 responses, and Merkaartor had 1, so it's based on very small sample size.
17:10:34 <zere> on the "need" one, the top were OWL, osm2pgsql and nominatim.
17:11:06 <zere> the "need" questions were answered much more, so there's a more solid basis for making decisions there.
17:12:02 <zere> apparently the best docs are for JOSM and rails_port(!), and the least need for potlatch2 and (j)XAPI.
17:13:26 <gravitystorm> so OWL x OWL seems a winner, if we're having winners
17:13:48 <zere> average numeric "need" product gives the ranking: OWL, osm2pgsql, nominatim, mod_tile/renderd, cgimap, OSRM, Merkaartor, rails_port, osmosis, overpass, iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, (j)XAPI.
17:14:11 <tmcw> woot, iD is notworst
17:14:36 <gravitystorm> tmcw: nowherenearworst, more like
17:14:39 <zere> but again, bearing in mind that the OWL one is based on 2 data points, and osm2pgsql 11 ;-)
17:15:09 <gravitystorm> zere: oh, well then it appears I stuffed the OWL ballot box to the tune of 50%
17:15:10 <zere> in general it seeems more like most client-side stuff is in the better half of the table
17:15:19 <iandees> \o/ wins
17:15:53 <zere> the "heavyweight" server stuff in the "worse" half of the table: osm2pgsql, nominatim, cgimap, OSRM
17:17:03 <zere> so, just for fun, i also created a "how much people care" score, based on how many actually expressed an opinion. top 3: osm2pgsql, JOSM, iD.
17:18:00 <gravitystorm> interesting
17:18:23 <zere> when weighting the "need" product by that, we get osm2pgsql and mod_tile/renderd top by a mile, followed by OSRM.
17:19:21 <zere> so, however we slice the lies^W statistics, looks like we have a run-away winner for documentation help: OWL. and some strong runners-up: osm2pgsql and mod_tile/renderd.
17:21:19 <gravitystorm> ok, so I'll look at OWL at some point in the future, if nobody else steps up before then.
17:21:55 <zere> #action gravitystorm to look at OWL docs.
17:21:59 <zere> gravitystorm: cheers :-)
17:22:07 <gravitystorm> ... at some point :-)
17:22:20 <zere> ... at some point before next meeting? ;-)
17:22:21 <gravitystorm> anyway, I need to head now, unless there's anything else for me on the agenda
17:23:32 <zere> #topic 2014 planning
17:23:39 <zere> back to your scheduled programming.
17:24:14 <zere> so, last week we discussed the funding available for hack weekends. i think the general consensus (other than surprise) was that it was worth keeping.
17:24:46 <zere> does anyone have any additional ideas for things which would need funding or other resources/
17:24:49 <zere> ?
17:31:39 <zere> i'll take that as a "no", then.
17:31:54 <zere> we can come back to this next week :-)
17:32:13 <zere> in the meantime, did anyone have anything else they'd like to discuss?
17:32:18 <zere> #topic AoB
17:35:36 <iandees> (not me :) )
17:37:00 <zere> cool. i guess it's a short meeting today, then!
17:37:28 <zere> thanks all for coming. have a think about what you want EWG to do in 2014, and hope to see you next week
17:37:40 <zere> ...with your list of things to do in 2014 ;-)