Working Group Minutes/SWG 2010-12-02

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

Minutes

Attending:

  • cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
  • toffehoff: Henk Hoff
  • samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
  • chrisfl: Chris Fleming
  • mkl: Mikel Maron
  • TomH: Tom Hughes
  • twain47: Brian Quinion
  • rweait: Richard Weait

Discussion outline

  • Previous minutes accepted as amended. rweait proposed, chrisfl seconded, no objections.

Tile layers follow up discussion.

  • mkl proposed a table to evaluate current and future tile layers against the tile policy guidelines as a sort of scorecard. It is to be community accessible and maintained.
  • toffehoff volunteered to build a prototype of the tile layer scorecard in the OSM wiki.

OSMF Resources discussion

  • DB has new upgrades in place and upcoming.
  • Search (nominatim) has new hardware on the way.
  • Routing is likely to get more attention in future and become an OSMF resource. The community, and TWG will select a routing solution SWG should be prepared to fund it once a spec is available.

OSMF mission discussion.

  • chrisfl to draft a mission discussion document.

IRC log

(10:02:28 AM) rweait: *** let's start a log, shall we? ***
(10:02:59 AM) mkl: thanks richard
(10:03:11 AM) chrisfl: No problem on the delay....
(10:03:44 AM) toffehoff: Ready when you all are.
(10:03:44 AM) samlarsen1: ready when you are
(10:03:46 AM) mkl: i woke at 530 here anyway!
(10:03:58 AM) mkl: cool let's start
(10:04:37 AM) mkl: during the board call last night we discussed the tile layers policy
(10:05:12 AM) mkl: basically board is totally cool with this, it's straightforward
(10:05:18 AM) mkl: the two bits of feedback were
(10:05:42 AM) mkl: "Interesting" is an ambiguous word, but fine for now ... unless any problems arise
(10:06:12 AM) mkl: and second, it wasn't clear how and to who tile requests would be made
(10:06:35 AM) toffehoff: Link to the policy doc: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal
(10:06:43 AM) rweait: from my recollection, the requests, and the rest of it, would go to Technical Working Group.
(10:06:51 AM) chrisfl: We discussed that they would go direct to the the Technical Working Group
(10:07:07 AM) chrisfl: they will make an initial decision and implement
(10:07:26 AM) chrisfl: We're not expecting lots of these kind of requests
(10:07:32 AM) mkl: ok, so they are ok with this? cool
(10:07:56 AM) mkl: guess it should just be made clear that email to TWG is what is required
(10:07:57 AM) samlarsen1: agreed
(10:08:07 AM) chrisfl: I'll let TomH confirm... but yes 
(10:08:07 AM) samlarsen1: it is in the notes at the bottom
(10:08:18 AM) mkl: cool
(10:08:31 AM) rweait: re: minutes.  Can we have a look here?  http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-25
(10:08:46 AM) rweait: Is this "enough" for minutes?  
(10:09:01 AM) rweait: and should we be "approving" preivous minutes?
(10:09:05 AM) mkl: also, I'm suggesting that we start a table listing some current tile sources, measured against the criteria, to give an example of how this works in practice
(10:09:16 AM) mkl: rweait: ah, sorry for breaking protocol!
(10:09:30 AM) rweait: hey, I'm just asking.  ;-)
(10:09:45 AM) mkl: no you're right
(10:10:05 AM) mkl: can we quickly review the miinutes, and get a proposal and a second?
(10:10:23 AM) chrisfl: I'm happy with the minutes, we should probably include a link to the version of the Policy that we agreed during the meeting.
(10:11:02 AM) rweait: chrisfl, will the link above do? 
(10:11:16 AM) samlarsen1: it was this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&oldid=563808
(10:13:09 AM) samlarsen1: but the current one (minor change) was ready by board
(10:13:09 AM) chrisfl: Yes but probably to a version.... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&oldid=563808
(10:13:09 AM) chrisfl: user Matt did some cosmetic changes but worth recording exact version we were looking at :)
(10:13:20 AM) rweait: I see that Matt added some of the technical requirement to the MUST column from the SHOULD column.  I like the revisions. 
(10:15:59 AM) samlarsen1: yes current revision is better : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal&direction=next&oldid=563832 but has 'reliable service' in both MUST & SHOULD
(10:16:47 AM) mkl: should only be MUST
(10:17:08 AM) mkl: or does that mean something different under SHOULD?
(10:17:22 AM) toffehoff: For the minutes it may be good to link to the correct version. 
(10:17:23 AM) rweait: I've put the version in the previous minutes.  Can we accept those, then adopt the changes today? 
(10:17:36 AM) rweait: And fix the duplication.  :-)
(10:17:52 AM) toffehoff: rweait: your reading my mind.
(10:18:07 AM) mkl: ok before that ... we ok with the minutes?
(10:18:19 AM) mkl: proposed? seconded?
(10:18:36 AM) ***rweait proposes previous minutes as ammended.
(10:18:41 AM) chrisfl: seconded
(10:18:45 AM) mkl: ok!
(10:18:54 AM) ***rweait but I can't spell amended.  
(10:18:58 AM) mkl: so on finalizing the guidelines
(10:19:32 AM) mkl: i want to suggest that there be a table where tile layers are measured against the criteria, given a history of their placement on osm.org, etc
(10:20:09 AM) mkl: this can be used for tracking tile layer requests, and TWG review
(10:20:13 AM) mkl: sense?
(10:20:23 AM) samlarsen1: agreed
(10:20:39 AM) rweait: Potentially interesting, but also a burden (for somebody)
(10:20:39 AM) toffehoff: You mean with table a page on the wiki?
(10:20:50 AM) mkl: right
(10:21:01 AM) mkl: yea, someone would need to start this
(10:21:08 AM) chrisfl: I would worry about the work in maintaining it. But documenting the current setup isn't a bad idea.
(10:21:33 AM) mkl: i can't imagine it's much work ... any tile layer reviewed by TWG or whatev
(10:21:36 AM) toffehoff: Setting up a page with guidelines how to use it on top should work.
(10:21:58 AM) rweait: can we minute who will set that up for next meeting?  ;-)
(10:22:13 AM) mkl: i second that
(10:22:38 AM) ***rweait looks for volunteers...
(10:22:40 AM) mkl: ok how about this ... we add this into additional notes
(10:22:44 AM) toffehoff: I may have some time this wekend...
(10:22:48 AM) toffehoff: weekend.
(10:23:06 AM) mkl: we could also ask outside the group
(10:23:15 AM) mkl: when emailing for feedback from the community
(10:23:39 AM) toffehoff: The most work is probably in setting up the structure of the page...
(10:24:05 AM) toffehoff: .... and then opening it up to the community.
(10:24:10 AM) mkl: toffehoff ... i guess you have volunteered? :)
(10:24:20 AM) toffehoff: guess i did ;-)
(10:25:19 AM) mkl: ok so once that structure is in place, we can open up for discussion
(10:25:25 AM) mkl: i can send that email out
(10:25:58 AM) mkl: we could keep the proposal on the osm.org wiki until we complete that
(10:26:09 AM) mkl: i would time bound the discussion
(10:26:16 AM) mkl: sense?
(10:26:33 AM) toffehoff: yes
(10:26:37 AM) samlarsen1: sense
(10:26:48 AM) chrisfl: sounds good
(10:26:59 AM) mkl: cool
(10:27:17 AM) mkl: so we move on?
(10:27:31 AM) toffehoff: what's next?
(10:27:36 AM) mkl: few things
(10:27:47 AM) mkl: we could continue discussing foundation resources
(10:28:15 AM) mkl: or look at new topics: osmf as financial umbrella; articles of association; mailing list policy
(10:28:44 AM) mkl: where were things with the resources discussion?
(10:29:20 AM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-11
(10:29:27 AM) mkl: doesn't look like it was discussed last week
(10:29:32 AM) mkl: ah yes, thanks henk
(10:29:35 AM) toffehoff: No, it wasn't
(10:30:08 AM) chrisfl: it wasn't
(10:31:20 AM) mkl: so just to summarize, we looked at current use of resources, started to come up with a basis to prioritize resources, and then discussed some ways to broad what the osmf currently supports
(10:32:51 AM) mkl: and we didn't cover the other issue raised by mapsomatic, of how to choose which services (besides tiles) to integrate into osm.org
(10:33:20 AM) chrisfl: We had a brief discussion, but didn't really reach any conclusions.
(10:33:42 AM) mkl: i guess i see us working towards policy on this issue, and making a recommendation to the board perhaps
(10:34:07 AM) chrisfl: We probably need to think about what kind of organization OSMF wants to be. 
(10:34:39 AM) chrisfl: this will then guide us in terms of what services we want to support.
(10:34:44 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl: agree
(10:35:39 AM) mkl: the idea of providing temporary hosting for innovative OSM-related projects seems like a small step from where we are now
(10:35:45 AM) rweait: If OSMF is the db. then we're doing well on that.  We also have tiles as a service to mappers.  
(10:36:07 AM) rweait: We have had search / nominatim on OSMF servers, but hasn't that fallen over?
(10:36:08 AM) mkl: we also have dev server
(10:36:26 AM) mkl: that's on mapquest servers now, i think?
(10:36:30 AM) mkl: search
(10:36:34 AM) rweait: search seems important to have under OSMF.
(10:36:43 AM) rweait: and then perhaps routing as well?
(10:37:04 AM) toffehoff: why routing?
(10:37:19 AM) rweait: It seems a logical next step, but I could be wrong.
(10:37:28 AM) TomH: search has been redirected to MQ while Brian rebuilds the search indexes
(10:37:42 AM) TomH: but we are also in the midst of obtaining new hardward for the search machine
(10:37:52 AM) mkl: ah ok
(10:38:13 AM) mkl: just for example, what would it take to host routing?
(10:38:22 AM) mkl: has anyone spec'd that out?
(10:38:25 AM) TomH: well first up a usable routing engine
(10:38:28 AM) chrisfl: You could argue that providing a complete mapping service is part of attracting new users to OSM and some of these will become editors.
(10:38:32 AM) TomH: until we have that we can't spec the hardware
(10:38:52 AM) TomH: or perhaps a better way to phrase that would be that we need to chose a routing engine to use
(10:39:04 AM) TomH: and find somebody able to setup and maintain it
(10:39:19 AM) rweait: I would argue that routing, by mappers, is an important QA tool to improve the DB. 
(10:39:44 AM) TomH: it is fully our (TWG) intention to add a routing server
(10:40:03 AM) chrisfl: This is a good thing.
(10:40:07 AM) toffehoff: It's good to know what the reason for providing a service is.
(10:40:17 AM) toffehoff: routing for QA purposes is good.
(10:40:36 AM) toffehoff: good for our data.
(10:40:37 AM) mkl: foundation now has funds to support more hardware, at least
(10:40:41 AM) rweait: What can SWG do for TWG on this?  "Stay out of the way, and send money?" :-)
(10:41:14 AM) toffehoff: the money is something practical.
(10:41:29 AM) toffehoff: This should be handled by the board.
(10:41:36 AM) mkl: rweait: like tile, come up with some policy on resources
(10:41:36 AM) toffehoff: .... I think....
(10:41:50 AM) mkl: perhaps a lot of this is making what is implicit, explicit
(10:42:02 AM) toffehoff: mkl: agree
(10:42:14 AM) mkl: because it then would allow us to be more clear with the community, ourselves
(10:42:23 AM) mkl: and donors, if it came to that
(10:43:07 AM) chrisfl: seems fair to me
(10:43:33 AM) toffehoff: misuse could be handled better as well.
(10:44:08 AM) mkl: toffehoff: misuse of tiles?
(10:44:23 AM) toffehoff: commercial companies using our tileserver
(10:44:45 AM) toffehoff: seeing it as a 24/7 full-scale tile server
(10:45:11 AM) mkl: yea, it would be good to see more documentation of actions taken, and why ... without adding extra burden to TWG
(10:45:21 AM) rweait: we're at 45 minutes. 
(10:45:50 AM) mkl: perhaps something like a twitter account logging sysadmin actions
(10:46:46 AM) mkl: rweait: right. so can we start to direct this discussion? are we ready to draft a strawman doc on this?
(10:46:52 AM) rweait: I don't think we want to automatically embarrass every over-user by tweeting "$Company blocked from OSM for tile server abuse!!!1!"
(10:47:25 AM) mkl: is that embarrassing?
(10:47:33 AM) rweait: interim minutes. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-02
(10:47:43 AM) rweait: only for $Company.  
(10:47:45 AM) samlarsen1: maybe a list on OSMF wiki?
(10:48:06 AM) mkl: perhaps we're ok with that? :)
(10:48:11 AM) rweait: Are we looking for a strategic problem here?  has anybody asked to tackle this?
(10:48:26 AM) rweait: It seems like it's already handled. 
(10:48:32 AM) mkl: rweait: this started with question of mapsomatic
(10:48:59 AM) toffehoff: the problem of mapsomatic itself has been resolved for now.
(10:49:08 AM) rweait: OKay, so can OSMF and SWG serve as money launderer for sponsoring projects? 
(10:49:08 AM) toffehoff: hosting by FSF (i think)
(10:49:36 AM) mkl: and that reveals there isn't clear guidelines on how we choose resources, and on whether we want to expand those resources
(10:49:53 AM) chrisfl: But strategically we don't know how to handle it.... or future requests for resources
(10:50:07 AM) mkl: i think henk adds in that if we are talking about resources, we also need to talk about misuse of resources
(10:50:14 AM) TomH: as a matter of policy we have always refused to log blocks
(10:50:34 AM) toffehoff: talking about resources: also about the intent of it's use.
(10:50:34 AM) TomH: mostly all we know is an IP address anyway
(10:50:41 AM) toffehoff: What do we what to accomplish
(10:51:02 AM) TomH: and the are legal/data protection/privacy issues with logging IP addresses that have been blocked
(10:51:08 AM) mkl: chrisfl said it ... how do we handle future requests?
(10:51:08 AM) toffehoff: What is it intented for? eq: QA or a professionla service
(10:51:17 AM) chrisfl: The documentation on misuse is okay?
(10:51:44 AM) chrisfl: I would say definite yes to QA
(10:51:45 AM) mkl: TomH: fair enough, was just throwing it out there
(10:51:49 AM) toffehoff: We can document misuse, but we first have to define what misuse is.
(10:52:06 AM) chrisfl: Profesional service on osm.org ; probably
(10:52:28 AM) mkl: we're kidding ourselves if we don't think the tiles are used beyond QA, for instance
(10:52:29 AM) chrisfl: Services external to osm - only at small scale
(10:52:43 AM) mkl: yes, it's about scale
(10:53:57 AM) mkl: so is it clear that defining and documenting resource allocation, and resource misuse, is a good thing for SWG to do?
(10:54:53 AM) mkl: 5 minutes to go
(10:55:53 AM) chrisfl: perhaps we need to put together a high level strategic plan/thoughts that we can then discuss
(10:55:53 AM) rweait: to me that sounds like "operational" or "management" issues. 
(10:55:54 AM) mkl: and also, get into more detail on how osmf meets its mission
(10:57:03 AM) rweait: should the mission really be anything other than, "Solve problems for mappers.  Make mapping easier and more fun"   ?
(10:57:15 AM) toffehoff: Is someone willing to set up a discussion doc?
(10:57:20 AM) mkl: sure ... but then how what does that mean for our activities?
(10:57:24 AM) chrisfl: and recruit more mappers
(10:57:56 AM) chrisfl: I'll try and start to put something together....
(10:57:59 AM) mkl: the mission is fine ... but then try applying that to hosting for mapsomatic, and you see we need more guidelines
(10:58:06 AM) rweait: "make sure API is available."  "plan to fund hardware growth"  
(10:58:42 AM) rweait: maposmatic is fine.  I like those guys.  Love the project. But "not OSMFs Problem."  
(10:58:56 AM) mkl: it's just an example
(10:59:00 AM) rweait: understood.  
(10:59:14 AM) rweait: I don't want to seem heartless, to maposmaptic.
(10:59:28 AM) mkl: sure, they've become our strawman :)
(10:59:34 AM) mkl: because we love them
(10:59:53 AM) mkl: ok, so what then ... how do we move?
(11:00:06 AM) rweait: or in general.  but that specialty rendering, is just one "consumer"  We want to enable them by providing great data...
(11:00:17 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl is putting something together for our next meeting?
(11:00:42 AM) mkl: ok cool
(11:00:50 AM) mkl: when's next meeting?
(11:00:53 AM) chrisfl: Yes, I'll try and get something on the wiki over the weekend, so that we can have a think before then
(11:00:53 AM) rweait: I should minute that.  chrisfl: will this be mission discussion doc?  
(11:01:01 AM) chrisfl: Yes
(11:01:04 AM) mkl: board meets in pisa next weekend
(11:01:12 AM) mkl: so could be very timely
(11:01:21 AM) rweait: Is this time next week okay for all?
(11:01:43 AM) toffehoff: Fine with me.
(11:01:51 AM) chrisfl: fine with me.
(11:01:55 AM) samlarsen1: i can't make next thurs
(11:02:06 AM) mkl: i *might* not be available, travelling
(11:02:06 AM) toffehoff: mkl: you're already traveling by then?
(11:02:22 AM) rweait: Is wednesday this time better?
(11:02:44 AM) mkl: not for me
(11:02:52 AM) toffehoff: this wednesday it would work.
(11:03:01 AM) samlarsen1: is good for me
(11:03:03 AM) mkl: and normally, that would stack before the weekly board meeting
(11:03:24 AM) mkl: but next week, either is equally maybe-ish ... so fine by me
(11:03:25 AM) samlarsen1: doodle pole?
(11:04:04 AM) toffehoff: chrisfl: can you make wednesday?
(11:04:10 AM) chrisfl: I can do wednesday
(11:04:21 AM) rweait: 1500 UTC next wednesday?  
(11:04:32 AM) samlarsen1: I can do wednesday
(11:04:34 AM) rweait: (one hour ago)
(11:04:43 AM) toffehoff: OK. fine with me.
(11:04:44 AM) mkl: 1 hour 4 minutes :)
(11:04:51 AM) mkl: cool
(11:04:51 AM) rweait: :-P
(11:04:55 AM) mkl: thanks all
(11:05:05 AM) mkl: we can close, logging off?
(11:05:09 AM) chrisfl: cheers
(11:05:13 AM) toffehoff: Bye all!
(11:05:18 AM) samlarsen1: bye
(11:05:30 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client).
(11:05:45 AM) rweait: *** logging off ***
Retrieved from "https://osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-12-02&oldid=1021"