Working Group Minutes/MWG 2018-04-30

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Paul Norman (pnorman)
  • Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
  • Joost Schouppe (joostschouppe)

Open issues

  • E-Mail rejected as spam on
  • Member self service area
  • Membership fee waiver program
  • missing reminders

Minutes of last meeting

unanimously accepted

CiviCRM mail problem

Steve is investigating. We want to bring in a consultant to speed it up.

Membership waiver

procedures were outlined by Joost

many requests for OSM accounts

In the last few weeks many requests regarding OSM accounts went to the MWG mailbox. They could have found this site: Maybe change the wording a bit to emphasize that it is not about the OSM account but the OSMF. Contact editor of that page.


19:59 < pnorman> I'll be getting off the train at about 7 past. So if anything needs me in particular, it should be at the 
                 very beginning, or towards the end.
20:00 < datendelphin> ok. Well maybe the civiCRM problem. I feel like we do not know what to do next
20:01 < SJFriedl> I looked into this in some detail and we're not really at a place that's actionable without more direct 
                  access to the platform, and I don't now how to get that (or if it's even possible)
20:02 -!- joostschouppe [] has joined #osmf-membership
20:03 < pnorman> SJFriedl: have you identified what you would check with shell access?
20:04 < SJFriedl> Mainly it's just digging around the platform code, where the scheduler gets its data from, and looking 
                  for debug hooks.  Would propose changes for platform team to make to help move it forward.
20:04 < pnorman> platform code?
20:04 < SJFriedl> CivicRM platform
20:05 < SJFriedl> I was surprised that the php cron job had no actionable output, we don't know why it's not picking up 
                  all the reminders when it runs regularly.
20:06 < pnorman> That's open source. I think all shell access would get you is log file access.
20:07 < datendelphin> would a dump help you?
20:07 < SJFriedl> Yah, I could always set this stuff up on my own VM and learn it that way, but this is a lot to dig in 
                  on.    Logs would be helpful but I believe somebody has said there's nothing useful in the logs.
20:07 < SJFriedl> like a db dump? 
20:08 < datendelphin> yes. well you answered it mostly already
20:08 < datendelphin> it is a lot of work of course
20:09 < SJFriedl> I was hoping to avoid that, but if that's what the consensus demands, then I'll get crackin. I can spin 
                  up an Amazon instance really easily.
20:09 < pnorman> Shell access wouldn't let you change the code either, that's controlled by chef. What I'm wondering is 
                 given we have other CiviCRM issuewp
20:10 < datendelphin> pnorman shouldn't you get off the train?
20:10 < SJFriedl> Well, one can always tweak code on the fly and keep good notes, but I understand what you're saying.
20:11 < pnorman> should we move to getting a consultant in to look at all the issues.
20:11 < SJFriedl> will they have the same issues w/ shell access if needed?
20:11 < SJFriedl> if not, then let's get a consultant.
20:11 < pnorman> SJFriedl: Generally you can't tweak code in production because its centrally controlled.
20:12 < SJFriedl> you say "can't", I say "shouldn't", but sure.
20:13 < SJFriedl> mainly there are probably configuration options we can request somebody update: log this or debug that.
20:13 < SJFriedl> I'll just spin up a VM and dive in myself.
20:14 < datendelphin> well it ceartainly takes some of the awkwardness out of it with dealing with owg. The cunsultant is 
                      finished and might never return to OSM, but we should avoid hard feelings from fellow volunteers
20:15 < SJFriedl> I've had to do this in the past, I'll get by, and becoming more expert in CiviCRM wouldn't be a bad 
                  thing for OSM anyway.
20:15 < pnorman> I can see getting shell access to look at stuff, but not to change stufd
20:16 < SJFriedl> oh sure.
20:16 < SJFriedl> but if it's hard to get any access,  I'm ok to do more homework first.
20:16 < pnorman> most companies I've been at would say no to the latter, so its probably a no here too.
20:16 < SJFriedl> fair enough.
20:18 < SJFriedl> I guess we can move on to other things now?
20:18 < pnorman> unless you wanted to become sysadmin for the join.osmf box. which OWG would probably welcome.
20:18 < SJFriedl> is that the same box?
20:18 < SJFriedl> I'm happy to help how I can.
20:19 < SJFriedl> but for short term probably best for me to just dig in on my own VM.
20:19 < pnorman> WiFi source is accelerating away, so away soon. poke me later about sysadmin stuff if interested.
20:19 < SJFriedl> ok
20:20 < datendelphin> ok, then hope to see pnorman soon again
20:20 < datendelphin> joostschouppe: hi
20:20 < joostschouppe> hi!
20:21 < datendelphin> So let's continue with last minutes.
20:21 < SJFriedl> I read them and approve.
20:21 < datendelphin> does everyone approve of them?
20:22 < joostschouppe> yep
20:24 < datendelphin> ok, thanks
20:24 < datendelphin> Well the other two topis were proposed by heather
20:25 < datendelphin> would you like to discuss them, or should we discuss them rather on the mailing list?
20:27 < joostschouppe> well we can't discuss them without her, if we don't have anything to work on
20:29 < joostschouppe> on the civicrm problem, I do feel bad about not getting this solved quicker. Especially since it's 
                       also an issue for Dorothea now too. I don't really understand why we are so hesitant on external 
                       consultancy. I understand the need to build our own expertise, but I don't see how it should be 
                       mutually exclusive
20:29 < SJFriedl> it needn't be, and I'm not opposed to a consultant at all.
20:29 < joostschouppe> The arguments against it went over my head I guess
20:30 < joostschouppe> so why don't we just get you set up with someone?
20:30 < SJFriedl> I don't know how to get anybody access to anything.
20:30 < SJFriedl> and only understand one of the ongoing issues.
20:30 < SJFriedl> (the email one, I understand there's something else going on too)
20:31 < pnorman> At the time we discussed it we only had the one issue and thought we needed to do more
20:31 < datendelphin> something else? There was a problem editing addresses and looking at the activity logs. But that was 
                      resolved by a subsequent update
20:32 < joostschouppe> there's our automatic mailing, and Dorothea's issue with sending out massive mails
20:32 < joostschouppe> similar issue I would guess
20:32 < datendelphin> As far as I am aware, it is the mail problem, which is observable in two cases
20:32 < SJFriedl> I didn't realize that mail was the common factor.
20:32 < datendelphin> yes joostschouppe has summed it up
20:32 < joostschouppe> ok, so that just leaves the access problem, right?
20:33 < pnorman> if we go with a consultant, I can proceed with access questions.
20:33 < SJFriedl> it may well be that a consultant can tell us "Oh, we know about that problem, here's how you fix it" but 
                  it's hard to know how it unfolds.
20:34 < joostschouppe> ok, so then any reasons to hold of more?
20:34 < SJFriedl> no
20:36 < datendelphin> did I get this right, so we bring in a consultant?
20:37 < SJFriedl> if we have multiple problems may as well get a pro. I'll still dig in on my side but i have a long 
                  learning curve.
20:38 < datendelphin> yes it hopefully speeds it up
20:38 < joostschouppe> SJFriedl, I'm mostly suggesting this so the pressure would be off of you. I can see the value of 
                       you learning as much as possible about the software; but if we get help you can do it at your own 
                       pace without all the eyes on you
20:38 < SJFriedl> Understood.
20:39 < SJFriedl> as my best friend told me once: "never engineer what you can negotiate" :-)
20:40 < datendelphin> my qestion now is more technical, hope pnorman has some internet to answer. Would someone of the MWG 
                      do that, or the board?
20:40 < datendelphin> or some mix (some steps get reviewed by the board)
20:40 < SJFriedl> good question. MWG submits proposal to OSM board with details and scope and all that?
20:41 < SJFriedl> actually, we probably should hunt down a suitable consultant first.
20:42 < SJFriedl> the CiviCRM web page has a list of consultants. I guess we'd prefer one in the UK ?
20:42 < datendelphin> And invoving the board will not make it quicker :) we want to keep it as lean as possible
20:42 < pnorman> I don't see anything that *needs* to be passed by the board unless we go over our 1k GBP budget. I 
                 suggest first asking osmf-talk saying we plan to hire one, in case one is in the community
20:43 < pnorman> We do want to keep the board in the loop
20:43 < datendelphin> ok
20:44 < datendelphin> so who writes to osmf-talk?
20:45 < SJFriedl> I think I can do that.  We're just making a call for experts, right?
20:45 < pnorman> Yes
20:45 < pnorman> Or if someone knows a consultant
20:47 < datendelphin> And by the end of the week if there is no feedback we can start picking one from the civiCRM 
                      recommended ones
20:48 < pnorman> I'll toss a note to the board
20:48 < SJFriedl> proposed text @
20:49 < joostschouppe> +1
20:49 < pnorman> No comment since I'm travelling and on my phone.
20:50 < datendelphin> We could even mention that the problem is with some emails getting lost
20:51 < SJFriedl> We're running CiviCRM 4.7.31 on Wordpress 4.9.5, and our
20:51 < SJFriedl> issues relate to emails not leaving the system (i.e, it's
20:51 < SJFriedl> not a mailserver issue).
20:51 < SJFriedl> We're running CiviCRM 4.7.31 on Wordpress 4.9.5, and our
20:51 < SJFriedl> issues relate to emails not leaving the system (i.e, it's
20:51 < SJFriedl> not a mailserver issue).
20:51 < SJFriedl> oops
20:51 < datendelphin> yes, sounds good
20:52 < datendelphin> so any other business? I have a small topic
20:53 < joostschouppe> just wondering what's next for the membership waiver?
20:53 < datendelphin> We get quite a few openstreetmap account related mails to
20:53 < SJFriedl> Yah, what the heck is that all about?
20:54 < datendelphin> I guess it is related to this page:
20:54 < datendelphin> If you search for openstreetmap contact, that page is one of the hits
20:55 < datendelphin> and the wording seems to fit for a random person not knowing anything about openstreetmap
20:55 < SJFriedl> these have been pretty odd emails
20:55 < datendelphin> "Membership enquiries
20:55 < datendelphin> for individuals"
20:56 < SJFriedl> Changing that to "OSM Foundation Membership enquiries..."  and adding another column "Manage your Open 
                  Street Map account" with a diff link?
20:56 < datendelphin> So I would propose to tweak the wording a bit on that page. Don't know how yet
20:57 < datendelphin> yes something like that
20:57 < SJFriedl> I can go back to the emails and get a better sense for what problem they are generally trying to solve 
                  and tailor the wording to that audience
20:57 < pnorman> Odd emails are up to the LWG too.
20:58 < datendelphin> well it was always about account deletions
20:58 < SJFriedl> "Delete your Open Streert Map Account" with a link ?
20:59 < datendelphin> a link to the FAQ probably
20:59 < datendelphin>
20:59 < SJFriedl> aha!
20:59 < SJFriedl> yes.
21:00 < SJFriedl> OT: OSMF-talk email sent
21:00 < datendelphin> thanks
21:00  * pnorman is at the hotel, on his laptop, and can type now
21:01 < datendelphin> ok, joostschouppe asked what's next for the membership waiver?
21:02 < pnorman> Next immediate step is we need to have the process for when we get a request.
21:02 < joostschouppe> so I wrote a proposal, but don't remember the feedback
21:03 < pnorman> Medium term, I think we then want to look at those who don't have suitable transfer facilities because 
                 bank accounts or credit cards are very difficult for them to get, and those who have financial need. The 
                 second being the bigger topic.
21:03 < pnorman> Did we have a proposal for process? I don't remember one, but I can't really check while travelling.
21:03 < joostschouppe> yeah, you worked on mine for a bit it seems:
21:05 < pnorman> Ah. It looks good, but needed a bit more stuff which I added comments about
21:05 < joostschouppe> I sent a mail to mwg on march 21st; pnorman was the only one to reply
21:05 < pnorman> I edited the doc
21:05 < datendelphin> oh sorry for no feedback. Must have been a bit busy and it slipped through. Good to bring it up
21:05 < joostschouppe> no problem, just putting it back on the agenda as it seems to be the blocking issue right now
21:07 < joostschouppe> if everyone says this is fine, I can start writing the default messages (there's 13 of them if I 
                       remember correctly :)
21:07 < joostschouppe> then, what's next? Is the form up and running? ANything else we need to do?
21:08 < datendelphin> Yes the form is ready (not public yet)
21:08 < pnorman> Everything is up and running, we just need to fix the minor issues in the procedure and write the text. 
                 +1 to writing the text, none of the things I pointed out will change any of the texts
21:08 < datendelphin> I think I would also prefer that they have to initiate the renewal, like other members
21:09 < datendelphin> We can easily have another form or a checkbox for renewal
21:12 < datendelphin> joostschouppe: would that be ok for you? renewal initiated by member?
21:12 < datendelphin> They will get the normal renewal reminder
21:13 < joostschouppe> Hmm, sure; I just thought it would be good to already do a basic check first.
21:13 < joostschouppe> OK, yes, if that message would make sense to them, then that's definitely OK
21:14 < pnorman> I think the normal renewal reminder is best
21:14 < joostschouppe> ".Your continued membership also supports OSMF financially, allowing it to carry on supporting the 
                       OpenStreetMap project."
21:14 < joostschouppe> that sounds weird if you're not paying anything
21:14 < pnorman> Perhaps a different text if we can, although if we can't, it wouldn't be fatal
21:15 < joostschouppe> yeah, looks like the text is tailered now too; eg "You are currently registered as an associate 
                       member. "
21:15 < joostschouppe> so we could just adapt it a bit
21:16 < joostschouppe> adapted it in
21:17 < datendelphin> well but then we would need another two membership classes
21:17 < datendelphin> I would avoid that
21:18 < joostschouppe> ?
21:18 < datendelphin> for a tailored message
21:18 < pnorman> Two?
21:19 < datendelphin> we would need a normal waiver and an associate waiver type added
21:19 < datendelphin> normal would be with postal address, associate without
21:19 < joostschouppe> I just copy pasted from a message to show that it is automated; I didn't mean to indroduce any new 
21:20 < pnorman> those on a fee waiver are associate members only
21:20 < SJFriedl> right.
21:20 < datendelphin> ah ok then it is only 1 added class
21:20 < datendelphin> the way it works is with separate messages depending on the membership class currently
21:21 < pnorman> We probably want that added class anyways. We don't reveal who is on the fee waiver program, but we want 
                 to be able to track it internally.
21:21 < datendelphin> ok
21:21 < datendelphin> good, then no problem with tha
21:21 < datendelphin> that
21:21 < joostschouppe> so if the procedure is basically OK, than anything left to do before releasing into the wild?
21:22 < pnorman> Nothing but finishing the procedure
21:22 < datendelphin> yes, thats good
21:23 < datendelphin> closing?
21:23 < pnorman> Oh, and writing an announcement and press release. We should coordinate with the CWG for a blog post.
21:24 < joostschouppe> ok, I'll work on it for a bit and send a message to mwg
21:24 < datendelphin> and cwg?
21:25 < joostschouppe> I can contact them too if noone else is on it
21:25 < pnorman> Getting the blog post ready can be done at any time
21:26 < datendelphin> thanks, joostschouppe 
21:27 < datendelphin> if there is nothing else, I would close this meeting
21:28 < joostschouppe> seems like it
21:30 < datendelphin> thank you everyone, have a nice day/evening
21:30 < joostschouppe> goodnight!