Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-01-13

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • twain47: Brian Quinion
  • chrisfl: Chris Fleming
  • cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
  • gravitystorm: Andy Allan
  • miblon: Milo van der Linden
  • mkl: Mikel Maron
  • RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
  • rweait: Richard Weait
  • samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
  • TomH: Tom Hughes
  • zere: Matt Amos



Minutes (draft)

  • Proposed by: Mikel Maron
  • Seconded by: Milo van der Linden and Sam Larson
  • Objections: none
  • Minutes accepted
  • Old business
  • Tile layers scorecard
Henk was not present. No action taken.
  • Review of budgeting draft from Milo
The SWG discussed the balance between "sufficient data from WG to provide for their budgets" and "administrative overhead of budgeting process". The goal is to lean towards a simple process to limit the additional burden on the Working Groups.
Initial budget period will be the remainder of this OSMF fiscal year. Further budget periods will likely match fiscal years.
Milo to contact WG chairs for comments on the budgeting process to date.
  • New business
  • No new business was discussed.
  • Next meeting
  • nominally same time next week but pending discussion on email list.

IRC log

(10:00:05 AM) rweait: *** logging started ***
(10:01:30 AM) samlarsen1 [] entered the room.
(10:01:32 AM) mkl [] entered the room.
(10:01:57 AM) mkl: hi everyone
(10:03:26 AM) rweait: hey mkl.
(10:03:45 AM) mkl: are we due to start now, or in 1 hour?
(10:04:06 AM) rweait: Shall we start by dispensing with old minutes of the 16th ?
(10:04:08 AM) rweait: now.
(10:04:24 AM) mkl: logging on?
(10:04:29 AM) rweait: yup/
(10:04:53 AM) rweait:
(10:05:21 AM) mkl: this was the last meeting
(10:05:22 AM) mkl:
(10:05:40 AM) rweait: yes, that one as well.  Dec-12 is some old stuff.
(10:05:46 AM) chrisfl left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
(10:06:00 AM) mkl: 12/16 meeting, we discussed last week, didn't really happen :)
(10:06:01 AM) rweait: or declare the meeting non-quorate
(10:06:12 AM) miblon: I have some documents to share. They are currently on Google Docs. Anyone here who cannot access google docs?
(10:06:29 AM) mkl: miblon: can you make these public?
(10:06:31 AM) miblon: Others; please share Google docs contact details so I can provide access
(10:06:38 AM) miblon: public is fine with me too if all agree
(10:06:39 AM) rweait: miblon: can we get a text-version for the wiki?
(10:06:41 AM) mkl: rweait: makes sense to non-quorate
(10:06:53 AM) rweait: objections?  
(10:06:54 AM) miblon: rweait, I would love to migrate the docs to the wiki
(10:07:25 AM) mkl: whatever is quickest for sharing 
(10:07:39 AM) chrisfl [] entered the room.
(10:07:52 AM) miblon:
(10:09:03 AM) mkl: ok, i have access
(10:09:44 AM) miblon: access is set to public
(10:09:53 AM) mkl: the balance we need to strike here is effective goal setting and budgetting
(10:09:58 AM) mkl: and ease for everyone
(10:10:28 AM) mkl: for comparison, can we also take a look at the twg's planning and budget document?
(10:11:55 AM) miblon: mkl, do you have a link to that?
(10:12:15 AM) rweait: Any movers, seconders, objectors for minutes of Jan 06, 2011?
(10:12:19 AM) mkl: i'm not saying the planning template isn't simple, but i also more colloquial ways of expressing this
(10:12:31 AM) mkl: miblon: not on hand ... gotta look it up
(10:12:36 AM) ***miblon seconds
(10:12:49 AM) zere: miblon:
(10:13:59 AM) mkl: zere: is there something else, or was this it?
(10:14:22 AM) ***RichardF congratulates TWG for being only OSMF committee to produce nice, readable PDF minutes
(10:14:27 AM) miblon: zere, got it
(10:14:39 AM) zere: mkl: that was it, afaik.
(10:14:44 AM) mkl: ok thx
(10:15:34 AM) mkl: so i think the needs the budget and planning template are trying to address are some of the things to think about it
(10:15:41 AM) zere: the previous minutes were a little more detailed
(10:15:55 AM) mkl: but i foresee grumblings about having to stick to a particular format
(10:15:59 AM) zere: s/minutes/summary/
(10:16:49 AM) miblon: rule of thumb: Minutes shouldn't take hours....
(10:17:05 AM) miblon: ;-)
(10:17:21 AM) mkl: miblon: i'm looking at the gdocs you shared
(10:17:47 AM) rweait: We still need to review last minutes.
(10:18:05 AM) mkl: oh can someone propose please. i think they're fine
(10:18:31 AM) rweait: YOu aren't moving them yourself mkl?
(10:18:38 AM) mkl: sure i'll propose :)
(10:18:44 AM) rweait: any objections?
(10:18:54 AM) samlarsen1: i'll second
(10:18:55 AM) miblon: mkl, frederik adviced me to set up a planning template light instead of full with monitoring guidelines, so let's not discuss the full
(10:19:12 AM) mkl: thx
(10:19:24 AM) miblon: no obj
(10:19:43 AM) mkl: ok just quickly reviewing from last time ... discussing miblon's drafts is what we had planned for now
(10:20:07 AM) mkl: also had henk to publish a tile scorecard, but he's not here
(10:20:15 AM) mkl: sorry, should we continue?
(10:20:18 AM) miblon: ok, careful what you say, my 5 mnth old daughter is watching
(10:20:26 AM) rweait: absolutely
(10:21:04 AM) mkl: let's just say it all in a soothing tone ;)
(10:21:11 AM) miblon: ;-)
(10:21:46 AM) mkl: ok, so what does everyone think? what kinds of things does the budgeting/spending policy guidelines and process need to accomplish? what format do these things take? what are the thoughts on the docs miblon shared?
(10:23:28 AM) miblon: I have set up the doc so it contains three goals
(10:23:32 AM) mkl: or miblon: do you want to explain this approach?
(10:23:35 AM) miblon: Goal 1: publish plans and budget requirements per working group
(10:23:46 AM) miblon: Goal 2: Register, coordinate and allocate funding
(10:23:56 AM) miblon: Goal 3: Communicate sponsoring
(10:24:29 AM) miblon: Basically what I personally would like to accomplish is a clear way to communicate to the world what we do, how and who makes it possible
(10:25:18 AM) samlarsen1: Goal 3 - maybe they could communicate the high priority funding requests for each WG - so sponsors know what they might be funding before they make a donation
(10:26:09 AM) zere: miblon: budgeting and planning is for the future, though? surely that's different from communicating to the world what we've done?
(10:26:24 AM) miblon: Goal 3 sample I had in mind:
(10:26:41 AM) miblon: zere, what we do. Planning a project == doing something ;-)
(10:26:59 AM) miblon: Eventually this will result in what we've done. And it will still be visible
(10:27:01 AM) zere: i disagree - planning is planning. *doing* something is different ;-)
(10:27:28 AM) miblon: ok, delete "what we do" and make it "what we intend to do"
(10:27:51 AM) zere: and we need to be flexible enough to recognise that planning != reality, that sometimes things will happen that weren't on the plan, or that things which were on the plan won't happen.
(10:27:52 AM) miblon: ?
(10:28:45 AM) mkl: that i agree with too ... the bdugetting and financing process needs some mechanism for flexability
(10:29:10 AM) miblon: zere, I agree. But I am also convinced we shouldn't give WGs to much of an evaluation requirement
(10:29:41 AM) miblon: we can make planning != reality implicit or explicit. I opt for the first.
(10:29:41 AM) mkl: i think these are all things we need to work on, yes ... but right now the Board has asked us to focus mostly on Goal 1
(10:29:52 AM) zere: i think the other WGs already have plenty enough requirements
(10:30:09 AM) mkl: zere: what are the current requirements?
(10:30:21 AM) chrisfl: We can tackle uncertainty to some extent by asking for a contingency figure as well, and ensuring that those funds are available if required.
(10:30:39 AM) zere: mkl: the work that they actually get done?
(10:32:17 AM) mkl: ok, so we need a process here. unfortunately it requires something additional
(10:32:35 AM) mkl: it's our job to make that something actually beneficial to the groups, rather than a burden
(10:33:36 AM) miblon: mkl, good point! That is the struggle I was facing when writing the documents
(10:34:02 AM) miblon: Any comment in that regard, to make things more lean and mean will be appreciated
(10:34:38 AM) mkl: I can mention the requirements of OSI. Of all the funders I've dealt with, they are the best to work with.
(10:34:46 AM) chrisfl: Agree, the process should be lightweight - enough information needs to be provided up front so that the money can be approved if required, without requiring a long dialog. But not so heavy that it takes a long time and work, questions can be asked if needed.
(10:34:53 AM) mkl: Rather than asking for budgetting, planning, and reporting in any particular format
(10:35:06 AM) miblon: Basically what I try to describe at Goal 1 is: SWG initiates (ask: "Hey, what do you guys intend doing this year?")
(10:35:14 AM) miblon: And WGs respond
(10:35:23 AM) miblon: no more, no less.
(10:35:28 AM) chrisfl: Question is does the structure help or hinder?
(10:35:32 AM) mkl: They ask specific questions, and it's up to the fundee to respond in whatever format makes sense
(10:36:33 AM) miblon: mkl, and then "They" will make that information somewhere available. They being, in my opinion someone from the SWG
(10:37:09 AM) mkl: You mean, this should all be public...
(10:37:52 AM) miblon: mkl yes
(10:38:33 AM) zere: i think a year is maybe too long a time-scale to be looking over, at least initially
(10:39:04 AM) mkl: zere: agreed for this round. as we're about halfway through the financial year, we could look at 6 months?
(10:39:35 AM) mkl: we can also invite longer term planning speculation, but not require it this time
(10:40:00 AM) miblon: zere, I agree on the year. Discussed it with wood^2 and we decided it might be wise to publish on demand
(10:40:09 AM) zere: it's probably better to leave the time scale undefined - let the WGs use whatever time horizon is suitable for them
(10:40:33 AM) mkl: though we do have something specific right now, with the MQ donation
(10:40:41 AM) miblon: zere, noted, good point
(10:41:34 AM) miblon: MQ donation has nothing to do with Goal 1 in my opinion
(10:41:58 AM) miblon: Or did MQ specifically stated how they want the donation to be spent?
(10:42:19 AM) mkl: no they didn't
(10:42:32 AM) miblon: then the MQ donation has to do with goal 2
(10:42:36 AM) mkl: and aside, that's going to always be preferable for us, when related to donors
(10:42:49 AM) mkl: the osmf has a need to spend the money, that's all
(10:44:08 AM) mkl: yes agreed miblon
(10:45:01 AM) mkl: ok at 45 minutes
(10:45:38 AM) mkl: can we give miblon some thoughts on what would be useful for the WG to receive as guidance?
(10:47:31 AM) mkl: hello ..........  hellloooo
(10:47:51 AM) ***miblon is thinking about selfguidance ;-)
(10:48:57 AM) chrisfl: sorry got called away - just catching up with the discussion
(10:50:12 AM) miblon: diaper? bottle? sleep? Why is someone getting so noisy near my left ear?
(10:50:36 AM) mkl: ask him/her for a plan
(10:51:28 AM) mkl: well ... i like the "OSI approach" to this ...
(10:52:00 AM) chrisfl: I think the documents are good. Possibly a note to say that they are guidelines, and groups can use whatever format they prefer.
(10:52:04 AM) chrisfl: ?
(10:53:00 AM) miblon: chrisfl; I do not intend on handing them formats. I intend on calling, mailing or skyping them
(10:53:21 AM) samlarsen1: do we need to mock up a budget template they can use as a base - will make process faster for WG's & make all budgets follow similar structure
(10:53:25 AM) miblon: Let me put it in a format and simply ask each WG's chair some simple questions
(10:53:45 AM) chrisfl: Of the three questions, what are you wanting to do? What do you need to do this?  and what outcome do you expect is the way to go.
(10:55:22 AM) mkl: this makes sense to me
(10:56:07 AM) chrisfl: My only worry is that the Outcome and the Activity might end up being the same thing.
(10:56:42 AM) samlarsen1: sorry - missed the template link :|
(10:57:45 AM) mkl: heh, yea i've seen that happen. i guess the point is to align the activity with a goal of the group. if the connection is obvious, then don't worry about it.
(10:58:13 AM) rweait: samlarsen1:
(10:58:15 AM) mkl: but for instance, the twg doc lists the timeline on hardware purchases, and below that, benefits/justifications for each. i think that's good to draw out
(10:59:21 AM) mkl: ok we're almost at an hour
(10:59:22 AM) chrisfl: agree
(10:59:28 AM) mkl: miblon, has this been helpful?
(11:00:35 AM) miblon: absolutely
(11:00:59 AM) rweait: move to adjourn then? 
(11:01:02 AM) mkl: i suggest we close the meeting, and try to iterate over email substantially this week
(11:01:07 AM) mkl: same time next week?
(11:01:21 AM) chrisfl: same time next week, works for me.
(11:01:22 AM) rweait: Sounds good.   Objections?
(11:01:40 AM) miblon: I won't be available next week same time
(11:02:17 AM) mkl: ok ... should we discuss over email moving an hour later perhaps?
(11:02:43 AM) rweait: let's keep same/same and address other business.
(11:03:19 AM) rweait: from last week we never discussed : 
(11:03:21 AM) rweait: * Publish and act on tile policy. Tile layers scorecard.  * SWG Mission and OSMF Mission  * Clarity on OSMF Resources and Priorities  * Formalize the working group 
(11:03:45 AM) mkl: ok ... miblon, let's keep it going on email, and see what happens for next week, ok?
(11:03:54 AM) miblon: ok
(11:04:08 AM) mkl: rweait: tile layers ... henk was going to do a scorecard ... can we remind him
(11:04:28 AM) rweait: Okay shall we close logging?
(11:04:51 AM) miblon: I have to leave, we'll be in touch
(11:04:58 AM) miblon left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving).
(11:05:15 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: ajax IRC Client).
(11:05:21 AM) rweait: *** logging closed ***