Working Group Minutes/MWG 2018-03-20
Participants
- Heather Leson (heatherleson)
- Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
- Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
- Paul Norman (pnorman)
- Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
- Joost Schouppe (joostschouppe)
Open issues
- E-Mail rejected as spam on membership@osmfoundation.org
- Member self service area
- Membership fee waiver program
- missing reminders
- Survey engine
Minutes of last meeting
unanimously accepted
New working group member
Heather Leson joins the MWG
Membership waiver
no progress
missing reminder emails
Steve looked into this in some detail, determined it's across the board, not one particular type of reminder. Asked TomH to capture some potential output from the scheduled task process, but it didn't show anything actionable yet.
Survey Engine
Joost has been talking about it for some time: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-March/005106.html It was on the agenda of the last board meeting, but not discussed SotM working group bought an externally hosted solution, but it would be more logical if MWG would manage this for now, given that some of the use cases would requiere special access to the membership data or OSM communication channels Joost is volunteering to take on any work associated with it.
Any other business
- Membership strategy plan - does it exist? In the meeting, we were advised that this is embedded in the minutes. If there is no stand alone planning document, perhaps this is an item for the next MWG - to draft and review?
- mailman or civicrm for an osmf-announce informational channel. Best to use civicrm because syncing the mailinglist is hard
Transcript
19:06 < datendelphin> here the link for etherpad for the minutes:
https://etherpad.coredump.ch/p/Cyfg4cKrBA
19:06 < heatherleson> check
19:07 < datendelphin> 1. last minutes:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2018-03-02
19:07 < pnorman> +1
19:07 < datendelphin> does everyone approve of them?
19:08 < heatherleson> yes please
19:08 < heatherleson> though, I was not at the last meeting, so maybe someone else
19:08 < heatherleson> do you follow roberts rules of order?
19:09 < datendelphin> I don't know what that is but probably no. We are quite informal
19:09 < heatherleson> ok
19:09 < datendelphin> SJFriedl has voted by proxy, so that should be enough
19:10 < datendelphin> 2. heatherleson as a new member of the working group
19:10 < heatherleson> Thank you. I care deeply about community engagement and hope to contribute once I
learn more.
19:10 < datendelphin> what are you interested in working on?
19:12 < datendelphin> I usually process the bank payments and the occaisonal question to the membership
mail address. Some are interested in "growing the membership"
19:12 < heatherleson> I think that there are many members of OSMF and the wider OSM community. IT seems
to me with some research and planning, we might be able to have small, medium and
larger asks to support all the working groups. OSM is amazing global community but
I would like to know how we engage other parts of the world and how we might build
a pathway
19:12 < heatherleson> exactly
19:13 -!- Mutter [~Mutter@2600:380:4076:dbec:6de2:7060:3989:1e91] has joined #osmf-membership
19:13 < heatherleson> so what I need to know is more about the TOR of the membership working group.
19:13 < datendelphin> what is TOR
19:13 < heatherleson> am I, for example, the first woman to join it?
19:13 < heatherleson> terms of reference - mandate - goals/objectives
19:14 < datendelphin> you mean this? https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership_Working_Group
19:14 -!- Mutter [~Mutter@2600:380:4076:dbec:6de2:7060:3989:1e91] has quit [Remote host closed the
connection]
19:14 -!- Mutter [~Mutter@208.115.85.65] has joined #osmf-membership
19:14 < heatherleson> yes, this is what I meant
19:14 < heatherleson> but I do think it needs a refresh if possible
19:15 < heatherleson> what if “increasing OSMF Membership” also included “increasing global membership
and leadership in working groups”
19:15 -!- Mutter [~Mutter@208.115.85.65] has quit []
19:16 < datendelphin> Ah ok. This is I think the third iteration of this WG
19:16 < heatherleson> or “increasing and supporting the global membership” with “supporting “ meaning -
encouraging leadrship
19:16 < heatherleson> tell me more
19:16 < datendelphin> I don't know much about previous instances
19:16 < heatherleson> paul?
19:17 < heatherleson> er /pnorman
19:17 -!- Steve_ is now known as SJFriedl
19:17 < SJFriedl> hi folks, just got home, reading above.
19:17 < datendelphin> I guess there are lots of people with ideas, but very little gets actually done.
19:17 < datendelphin> hi SJFriedl
19:17 < heatherleson> Hi Steve
19:17 < heatherleson> SJFried
19:18 < pnorman> I'm not sure off-hand. I do know there's been previous work that has failed because
people had ideas, but didn't follow through with working on them.
19:18 < heatherleson> Ok, this is good info though. what you have said is - we get inquiries, but are
missing the pathways
19:18 < heatherleson> Tell me more pnorman (if possible)
19:18 < pnorman> No, I'm not sure what that means.
19:19 < datendelphin> no we have ideas, not inquiries
19:19 < pnorman> People believe things are important, but not to the point of helping work on them.
19:20 < heatherleson> community management speak - it means - we have ideas, there is interest, but we
have a break in conversion to action. For other open communities, there are items
called ‘small asks’, ‘medium asks’ and ‘big asks’. This means what is the 1
minute, 30 minute or larger thing to be done
19:20 < heatherleson> i hear you
19:21 < heatherleson> how about i park myself for now. I think there is potential to increase osmf
membership and leadership.
19:21 < heatherleson> for now, I have just joined and want to respect your process and learn
19:21 < datendelphin> To get back to your general direction stated above, I think "leadership in working
groups" does not really fit. We do not govern working groups. We just keep the
register of members tidy
19:21 -!- joostschouppe [~oftc-webi@ptr-9ymkhv2e33iy68l6e3f.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be] has quit
[Remote host closed the connection]
19:21 < heatherleson> ok - noted.
19:22 < heatherleson> who promotes community development and is accountable to support the growth of
working groups
19:22 < pnorman> Ya - increasing membership is in our scope, getting members more involved is, but
leadership is outside our scope. We'd need to define what leadership means to add it to
the WG's scope.
19:22 < heatherleson> i would nto want to govern working groups. It is more that I thought ‘membership
working group’ would help OSMF community develop.
19:22 < heatherleson> terms
19:23 < heatherleson> pnorman - that is super helpful
19:23 -!- jonwit [~oftc-webi@208.115.85.67] has joined #osmf-membership
19:23 < heatherleson> maybe we could add that to our next agenda while people think
19:23 < heatherleson> involved to me = a road to leadership.
19:24 < jonwit> hello everyone sorry im late. this is jonathan witcoski
19:24 < heatherleson> i should say that I use leadership in an equal open way not a hierachical way
19:24 < heatherleson> Hi jonwit
19:25 -!- joostschouppe [~oftc-webi@ptr-9ymkhv2e33iy68l6e3f.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be] has joined
#osmf-membership
19:25 < datendelphin> I don't know, you speak a different language. I have a really hard time to figure
out what that all means.
19:25 < pnorman> Likewise.
19:25 < heatherleson> ok, may i try again then
19:26 < heatherleson> community management and community development are key to membership engagement
19:26 < SJFriedl> I sort of get it: it loks like trying to cultivate leadership interst in the members.
Most folks doing mapping will just do their thing, but *somebody* has to step up and
run the place.
19:26 < SJFriedl> when I was a hike leader, I was always looking for new folks who I thought would be
good hike leaders themselves. One-man-shows are not great for organizations.
19:26 < heatherleson> if the MWG mandate is to grow OSMF membership, would it not follow that we should
also encourage engagement across all the WG and help support that type of
engagement.
19:28 < joostschouppe> I was talking about this kind of stuff with Ben Abelshausen (xivk), and we
thought about a -it needs a name- strategic working group, which would
specifically target tasks that don't really fit any working group
19:28 < heatherleson> nice. Hi joostschouppe
19:28 < joostschouppe> because it does make sense to me to have focused working groups
19:29 < heatherleson> the membership and the community are close cousins.
19:29 < joostschouppe> but I've already seen things slip through the cracks (like Ilya's contribution in
the last meeting) and myself trying to expand this WG with the social survey
engine
19:29 < heatherleson> and if OSM is the supporter community and OSMF is the membership, then we are here
to support the growing needs, especially in the other parts of the world
19:30 < heatherleson> What was Illya’s contribution in the last meeting?
19:30 < datendelphin> recurring paypal donation button
19:30 < heatherleson> ah
19:31 < joostschouppe> details:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2018-03-02#Transcript , at 22:09
19:31 < heatherleson> that is a decent idea, which would require some specs
19:32 < datendelphin> why specs? he had a prove of concept. Just no time to test it properly
19:32 < heatherleson> hmm, that is an important item.
19:32 < heatherleson> is there a github account for this?
19:32 < heatherleson> how do you manage inter-meeting items?
19:32 < datendelphin> https://github.com/osmfoundation/donation-drive/pull/13
19:33 < datendelphin> we keep an Open issues list. see the top of the current etherpad
19:33 < heatherleson> ok, so this item is or is not on teh MWF agenda
19:33 < SJFriedl> which is at https://etherpad.coredump.ch/p/Cyfg4cKrBA
19:33 < heatherleson> i don’t see it
19:33 < heatherleson> i mean I see the etherpad, but the item …
19:33 < joostschouppe> well no, that was my point exactly
19:34 < joostschouppe> because it didn't really seem to fit this WG
19:34 < heatherleson> hmm, but it is growing the membership with modern tools
19:34 < datendelphin> no id is fund raising, not growing membership
19:34 < joostschouppe> which is OK for me, it just bothered me that we couldn't really give an
alternative course of action
19:34 < heatherleson> agreed
19:35 < pnorman> Writing software isn't our job normally, and it's donations, not membership.
19:36 < joostschouppe> I though Zverik was asking for help on how to move forward, not writing software
19:36 < pnorman> The PR identifies some unfixed issues, and testing is part of writing software
19:37 < datendelphin> no he said someone needs to test it
19:37 < heatherleson> ok, so which Wg would manage it
19:37 < heatherleson> honestly we can find testers.
19:37 < heatherleson> how do other changes get tested?
19:38 < pnorman> The development community. The OSMF explicitly does not manage software development.
19:38 < heatherleson> of course. so then would he just ask people to test with him via osmf-talk
19:39 < datendelphin> no he can do that himself
19:39 < heatherleson> it seems to me if it is going to help the membership donate money that we have a
stake in seeing it done well. however, if it is outside the WG, then I understand
19:39 < pnorman> The donation page is slightly odd since it's more of an OSMF thing than an OSM thing,
but if we're all agreed it's a donation issue, not a membership one, and not within our
scope, should we move on?
19:41 < joostschouppe> If I understand right, no working group should work on this because it's software
dev?
19:41 < datendelphin> yes. So heatherleson would you like to help with the growing membership part?
19:42 < heatherleson> yes
19:43 < heatherleson> “growing and supporting”
19:43 < heatherleson> if it is just about numbers, then there is less value
19:43 < heatherleson> people before data
19:43 < SJFriedl> +1
19:45 < heatherleson> is there a strategy document on membership growth from the MWG
19:46 < heatherleson> if not could we do this together?
19:46 < datendelphin> which document are you referring to?
19:47 < heatherleson> usually if there is a mandate to grow something, there is a plan or an archive of
plans
19:47 < datendelphin> ah that would be in the minutes
19:48 < heatherleson> so, there is no standalone doc, I would need to go through all the past minutes?
19:48 < datendelphin> To sum it up: currently we focus on making it easier/possible to pay the
membership fee
19:48 < heatherleson> ah
19:48 < heatherleson> which is super important
19:49 < pnorman> Just a reminder on time
19:49 < SJFriedl> also the fee waiver program for places that have a hard tie with that
19:49 < datendelphin> yes as SJFriedl that is the only thing we acutally managed to do some progress
19:49 < datendelphin> so lets go to that item?
19:51 < datendelphin> joostschouppe: have you got anything yet for a procedure document?
19:51 < joostschouppe> sorry, no
19:51 < joostschouppe> this meeting was a bit sooner than I expected
19:51 < joostschouppe> I'll do it by this Friday
19:52 < pnorman> I haven't gotten to reviewing the form. The meeting crept up on me. datendelphin, can
we set up a time to go over it together?
19:52 < datendelphin> sure
19:52 < heatherleson> joostschouppe - I can review it when ready if this helps
19:52 < heatherleson> (on annual leave march 28 - april 9
19:53 < joostschouppe> great
19:53 < heatherleson> heather@osmfoundation.org.
19:54 < datendelphin> pnorman: can you add heatherleson to the mwg@ address? Then joostschouppe can post
it there and all see it
19:54 < pnorman> datendelphin: yes
19:55 < datendelphin> Next topic 4: missing reminder mails.
19:56 < datendelphin> SJFriedl would you like to give a summary?
19:57 < SJFriedl> Sure. I went through all the lapsed members to see which reminders had been sent. The
CiviCRM platform records all this stuff, so this is a matter of the emails not being
sent *rather than* getting lost in the ether somewhere.
19:57 < SJFriedl> the pattern is that every type of reminder: first and second, expiration #1, etc. had
missing items, so it's not a matter of one setup being wrong. This is across the
board with no obvious pattern.
19:58 < pnorman> It was found that one of the email addresses set for errors was set to jon bennet, who
was involved with past membership work, but isn't active. The admins fixed that, so
it's possible we might get some new error notifications, but I haven't seen any, so
doubt it's related
19:58 < SJFriedl> We saw that too.
19:58 < SJFriedl> Tom H started having them sent to himself (or a related address) and I believe got
nothing actionable.
19:59 < SJFriedl> so this means digging more into CiviCRM software more directly to find out what's
going on, perhaps to turn on some verbosity or something.
19:59 < SJFriedl> It's all PHP so how hard could it be? :-)
20:00 < SJFriedl> nothing actionable for the group, it's all on me right now.
20:00 < pnorman> Is that the sound of you volunteering? ;)
20:00 < SJFriedl> the sound of me volunteering was last meeting :-)
20:00 < SJFriedl> yes
20:00 < pnorman> When you get farther into it if you feel it's not something you're going to be able to
solve and we need outside expertise, don't be afraid to say so.
20:01 < SJFriedl> Right, I understand that. It's not a good use of my time to spend 40 hours learning
this stuff, but so far that's not necesary yet.
20:01 < heatherleson> can we ask someone to help?
20:01 < heatherleson> surely others know civicrm
20:01 < datendelphin> It is a big issue, because it potentially means losing members. So thanks for
stepping up, and what pnorman said.
20:01 < heatherleson> +1
20:01 < SJFriedl> we'll engage CiviCRM consultants, but I want to do a little bit of digging first.
We've already taken steps and believe that datendelphin and I have a handle on it for
now.
20:02 < pnorman> We've discussed going to a consultant but haven't felt it's at that point yet. Even if
we can clearly identify the problem then need to bring someone in, it's good to do that
identification.
20:03 < datendelphin> I believe Joost added 5: Survey Engine
20:03 < joostschouppe> correct
20:04 < datendelphin> joostschouppe please explain
20:04 < joostschouppe> we can keep it for next time if needed. It's just that it's already been on the
board agenda
20:04 -!- jonwit [~oftc-webi@208.115.85.67] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:04 < joostschouppe> well I wrote a summary on the etherpad
20:05 < joostschouppe> I guess I just want to know how you all feel about this
20:06 < datendelphin> Do you have any plans for surveys to make?
20:06 < SJFriedl> vi versus emacs?
20:06 < SJFriedl> :-)
20:06 < pnorman> Board hasn't asked anything of us with it yet, and no one has started writing any
surveys which need a platform, so there's nothing urgent. I'm inclined for either
limesurvey, that OSM-specific one that was mentioned, or something within CiviCRM. DWG
considered their survey with hosted LimeSurvey a success.
20:07 < joostschouppe> it's almost a PR thing. The idea would be to use this for our own needs, but also
as a way to encourage researchers to go through the community when thinking abut
surveys
20:08 < heatherleson> especially if metrics exist
20:08 < joostschouppe> that way, we don't get twenty small surveys on the same subject, but one proper
survey
20:08 < SJFriedl> it would be super if we got actionalble information, even if for some other WG
20:08 < joostschouppe> so if we decide we do this, we can start advertising its use
20:09 < pnorman> The main special needs we'd have would be tie-ins with OSM user names or with OSMF
membership info
20:09 < joostschouppe> also, I consider this already up-and-running, as I'm managing the survey for SotM
right now (which isn't social science but community participation)
20:10 < joostschouppe> SJFriedl, if you have things you want to know and think can be measured, we could
work on an OSMF member survey
20:10 < SJFriedl> I don't have anything to ask, but others who are more about community engagement
*cough* Heather *cough* might :-)
20:10 < pnorman> I did have an AOB too
20:11 < heatherleson> yes, I can help
20:11 < heatherleson> joost, maybe we should set up a time to cowork
20:11 < heatherleson> I added my strategy doc question to AOB
20:11 < joostschouppe> before we move on, what actions should we do as a WG?
20:11 < heatherleson> for the survey?
20:11 < datendelphin> what action do you propose?
20:11 < joostschouppe> can we just continue on the course I set, or do we need to get the full board
attention?
20:12 < pnorman> I don't think there's anything that needs board approval
20:12 < joostschouppe> ok, great
20:12 < heatherleson> honestly, we should be a data-driven org, so have at it
20:12 < joostschouppe> I'll consider this up and running then, and suggest SotM hand over their account
to us
20:13 < pnorman> DWG has a limesurvey account too, for the hosted solution. But it's not active.
20:13 < datendelphin> pnorman: AOB?
20:13 < joostschouppe> thanks pnorman, I'll get in touch with them too
20:14 < pnorman> Did we have anything else to do on the question of getting out announcements to
members? re. mikel's question about osmf-announce@. I got the impression he was looking
for more, but wasn't sure exactly what
20:14 < datendelphin> ah mikel I forgot
20:14 < datendelphin> The thing is, Dorothea already asked that some months ago
20:14 < heatherleson> i think osmf-announce would build much good will
20:15 < joostschouppe> (AOB=any other business; today is strong on the abbreviations)
20:15 < datendelphin> I answered that probably the best solution is to use civicrm, because keeping the
mailinglist in sync is really difficult
20:15 < heatherleson> as in - if we are not sending renewal notices and are investigating, we should
post to osmf-announce
20:16 < heatherleson> to let people know to renew just in case. That is what I see osmf-announce for -
major announcements, administrata
20:17 < SJFriedl> renewal notices are spotty. Short term we can probably just watch it manually to see
what's been missed and follow up with an email to the member
20:17 < heatherleson> ok
20:18 < heatherleson> ok let me try again
20:18 < pnorman> osmf-announce@ effectively doesn't exist right now, it's been shut down, and we don't
want to bring it back, because keeping a mailing list in sync with membership is a pain.
20:18 < heatherleson> is the question - should we (the MWG) start the osmf-announce list
20:18 < SJFriedl> We would need a way to sync it with actual membership.
20:18 < heatherleson> if yes, we should because people want headlines
20:18 < heatherleson> some people are ok monitoring osmf-talk
20:19 < heatherleson> some people just want to urgent membership details.
20:19 < SJFriedl> there might be some kind of API with CiviCRM that would extract this list to let it
sync with whatever is used for mailing.
20:19 < heatherleson> i would recommend bringing it back.
20:19 < heatherleson> what are the reasons for not bringing it back?
20:19 < SJFriedl> syncing mailing list with actual membership
20:19 < datendelphin> heatherleson that is not the question. It is a purely technical one
20:19 < heatherleson> honesty, i am getting feedback that the osmf-talk last is hard
20:19 < heatherleson> oh
20:19 < heatherleson> tell me more
20:20 < SJFriedl> who do we use for mailing now?
20:20 < SJFriedl> for (say) osmf-talk ?
20:20 < datendelphin> if we send it through mail man or civicrm
20:20 < pnorman> civicrm and mailman don't talk to each other, so it's manual work every time someone
joins or leaves.
20:20 < datendelphin> mailman SJFriedl self hosted
20:20 < SJFriedl> ok.
20:21 < joostschouppe> mailchimp then?
20:21 < SJFriedl> that would trade one problem for another
20:21 < joostschouppe> it has an api
20:21 < SJFriedl> we have to see if CiviCRM does too.
20:21 < pnorman> We can send emails from civicrm, I thought that's what we were recommending?
20:21 < SJFriedl> if we can, that's a great way to handle it.
20:21 < SJFriedl> though I wonder if the communications working group would be the peeps for the content?
20:22 < pnorman> ya, content isn't our job.
20:22 < datendelphin> yes we can send through civicrm and Dorothea has done it a couple of times I
assure you
20:22 < SJFriedl> well then that solves that problem. If osmf-announce works, then the comms working
group could own this with content
20:23 < joostschouppe> SJFriedl do you mean civicrm mailing or a mailing list?
20:23 < SJFriedl> civicrm doing the mailing. This would be a one-way blast, not like a mailing list
people could chat to.
20:24 < SJFriedl> osmf-talk would be for discussions I suppose. If we have to do it through mailman to
allow conversations, it's a lot more work to keep the email lists to sync
20:24 < heatherleson> announcements are set up for lower volume, strategic messages
20:24 < joostschouppe> ok, so we send that answer to mikel again then?
20:24 < datendelphin> I would propose to drop the forced subscription (like many others have)
20:24 < heatherleson> eg. board elections,
20:25 < datendelphin> just inform them that they can subscribe as a member
20:25 < heatherleson> bylaws,
20:25 < heatherleson> urgent things
20:25 < pnorman> Ya, we don't need a list that supports discussion. We do need a way for them to
unsubscribe from announcements, except legally required ones.
20:25 < heatherleson> annual fundraising, SOMT
20:25 < heatherleson> SOTM
20:26 < heatherleson> ok, it is 1.5 hours and late. I need to go.
20:27 < heatherleson> i will read the notes.and try to find back documents on ‘growing the membership’
20:27 < heatherleson> night all
20:27 < SJFriedl> Thanks for joining us.
20:27 < heatherleson> thanks for helping me on ramp
20:27 < datendelphin> ok, we can pick up your any other business item next time then
20:28 < heatherleson> we started to talk about it but i think it is a matter of looking for old docs
20:28 < datendelphin> Then we close the meeting for today. Thanks all for joining.