Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-01-27

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • _chrisfl: Chris Fleming
  • cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
  • Firefishy: Grant Slater
  • miblon: Milo van der Linden
  • mkl: Mikel Maron
  • RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
  • rweait: Richard Weait
  • samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
  • stevenfeldman: Steven Feldman
  • toffehoff: Henk Hoff
  • TomH: Tom Hughes
  • twain47: Brian Quinion
  • wonderchook: Kate Chapman
  • zere: Matt Amos




  • Amended previous minutes re attendance
  • Minutes proposed by chrisfl
  • minutes seconded by miblon
  • no objections - Minutes of 20 Jan 2011 accepted
  • Agenda for today
  • Budgeting process review.
  • Tile layers scorecard
  • Formalizing the working group.
  • Communications WG request. Small addition to posting minutes needed.
  • Budgeting process review.
  • Review guidelines from miblon, woodpeck and wonderchook
  • formalize SWG
  • Those in attendance were invited by mkl to be formal members of the SWG. zere declined
  • SWG meetings will be chaired. Chair may assign a board member or other surrogate to chair the meeting in their absence. Such delegation should be assigned in advance via SWG mailing list.
  • meeting require attendance of >50% of the formal membership.
  • Tile Layers Scorecard
  • toffehoff to prepare tile scorecard for next meeting.
  • Provide summary for CWG
  • rweait to summarize this week.
  • next meeting potentially 03 February 2011 @1500UTC, but subject to change based on agreement via SWG email list.
  • meeting closed at 11:09 EST

IRC log

(09:59:50 AM) rweait: *** Shall we start logging then? ***
(10:00:00 AM) chrisfl: shoot
(10:00:10 AM) miblon [] entered the room.
(10:00:14 AM) miblon: hi
(10:00:21 AM) mkl: hiya
(10:00:38 AM) miblon: he Henk! Good to see you here too!
(10:00:39 AM) samlarsen1 [] entered the room.
(10:01:09 AM) mkl: just wrapping up another call
(10:01:22 AM) toffehoff: Hi all. Finally could make it this time.
(10:01:45 AM) rweait: Previous minutes
(10:02:26 AM) mkl: that one was short and sweet
(10:02:31 AM) miblon: rweait, I made apologies for the previous meeting. Can this be fixed in the minutes ;-)
(10:03:06 AM) mkl: after that, can we get a propose and second
(10:03:07 AM) chrisfl: Previous minutes proposed
(10:03:22 AM) chrisfl: (with fix)
(10:03:42 AM) chrisfl: r/with/assuming/
(10:03:43 AM) rweait:  miblon: Was your apology in advance of the meeting?  
(10:03:47 AM) stevenfeldman [] entered the room.
(10:04:16 AM) rweait: Ah there it is.  Got it.
(10:04:32 AM) mkl: can someone second
(10:05:17 AM) mkl: hello?
(10:05:27 AM) miblon: waiting for the fix
(10:05:38 AM) stevenfeldman: hi there I have made it for my first strategic wg
(10:05:41 AM) miblon: I will second
(10:06:15 AM) mkl: welcome stevenfeldman
(10:06:19 AM) stevenfeldman: thx
(10:06:21 AM) mkl: thanks miblon
(10:06:30 AM) mkl: so here's our agenda today
(10:06:36 AM) mkl: - Budgeting process review. Expecting Milo to provide something. - Tile layers scorecard. Have been expecting Henk. We can re-assign if needed. - Formalizing the working group. Thread started by Richard. - Communications WG request. Small addition to posting minutes needed. 
(10:06:58 AM) mkl: a lot to work through today, so let's try to move quickly
(10:07:21 AM) mkl: miblon, do you want to start with an update on the budgetting process
(10:07:28 AM) miblon: mkl, ok
(10:08:03 AM) miblon: Haven't recieved any input on list or mail.
(10:08:25 AM) toffehoff: just send you some comments.
(10:08:30 AM) mkl: we're talking about these docs:
(10:08:35 AM) toffehoff: bout 20 minutes ago
(10:09:03 AM) miblon: toffehoff, I will check them now
(10:10:39 AM) mkl: miblon: we have some discussion on the 13th on these ... has that been taking into account?
(10:11:09 AM) miblon: Henks remarks have been posted to the doc as pending questions
(10:11:18 AM) miblon: mkl, reviewin minuts from the 13th now
(10:11:37 AM) toffehoff: The comments of Frederick has been taken into account as well?
(10:11:57 AM) mkl: the osmf-swg-budgeting-guideline doc is for us to direct the process
(10:12:24 AM) mkl: the budget template and planning template are for each wg to go through the process
(10:12:54 AM) mkl: my suggestion is to at least at first, make what we present to the WG more narrative based
(10:13:22 AM) mkl: ie present what's happening clearly, ask the specific questions we want answered, and allow some leyway in how the responses are produced
(10:14:29 AM) chrisfl: Yes I agree, I think the headings are good. But we should allow more flexability in how things are presented. 
(10:14:51 AM) miblon: mkl, made some minor changes to the doc, (in yellow) for reviewing
(10:15:29 AM) miblon:
(10:15:41 AM) miblon: If anyone wants to edit, please let me know, I will provide access
(10:16:08 AM) miblon: toffehoff, yes. The comments Frederik posted a couple of weeks ago on the list if those are the once you meant
(10:16:22 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: ajax IRC Client).
(10:16:28 AM) mkl: miblon: once we formalize membership, we could open up to everyone for editing/comment
(10:16:36 AM) miblon: mkl, ok
(10:16:44 AM) samlarsen1 [] entered the room.
(10:16:51 AM) toffehoff: miblon: yes
(10:17:38 AM) mkl: we had a couple people committed to supporting miblon to work through this
(10:18:01 AM) mkl: wonderchook and woodpeck if i remember
(10:18:01 AM) miblon: toffehoff, then the answer is yes. The guidelines wheren't there before Frederik gave his comments and the templates are modified based upon his comment
(10:18:21 AM) miblon: wonderchook, and woodpeck both gave feedback
(10:18:21 AM) toffehoff: miblon: ok
(10:18:26 AM) miblon: thank you for that
(10:19:12 AM) mkl: miblon: do you have enough feedback to work through a quick revision? can anyone else assist too?
(10:19:30 AM) miblon: mkl, perhaps it is good to move to formalization first then? After that we can continu or broaden the small "guideline projectgroup"
(10:19:47 AM) miblon: mkl, let me check. I am in the document, will work through it quiclky now
(10:19:52 AM) mkl: cool let's do that
(10:20:31 AM) mkl: did everyone see rweait's email?
(10:20:52 AM) rweait: miblon: can you make a read-only version of that file for the minutes?  
(10:21:01 AM) rweait: ONe that does not require a login?
(10:21:03 AM) toffehoff: you mean
(10:21:12 AM) mkl: toffehoff: yes
(10:21:18 AM) toffehoff: Read it.
(10:21:26 AM) stevenfeldman: me too
(10:22:06 AM) chrisfl: yup
(10:22:11 AM) mkl: i really have no objection to this. i suggest we start this from next meeting
(10:22:38 AM) miblon: rweait, I think it is readonly and doesn't require login.
(10:22:56 AM) zere: might it make sense for SWG to go through and fill out the template? that then provides an example to follow as well as the other benefits of dogfooding?
(10:23:03 AM) miblon: This link is marked as "public for the web"
(10:23:35 AM) miblon: zere, sounds fine with me
(10:23:37 AM) mkl: zere: good point
(10:23:55 AM) toffehoff: +1
(10:24:41 AM) miblon: (5 anonymous users in the doc right now)
(10:24:58 AM) toffehoff: One being me.
(10:25:02 AM) mkl: cool. let's keep moving in the agenda, into formalization.
(10:25:18 AM) Firefishy [] entered the room.
(10:25:26 AM) ***miblon wipes sweat of his forehead
(10:25:31 AM) mkl: heh
(10:26:01 AM) mkl: are you all happy with what rweait laid out?
(10:26:16 AM) stevenfeldman: are we onto his mail now?
(10:26:35 AM) mkl: yes
(10:26:50 AM) miblon: toffehoff, example of sponsorpage:
(10:28:03 AM) toffehoff: miblon, thanks for the example.
(10:28:06 AM) stevenfeldman: what are the criteria for being a "formal"member
(10:28:25 AM) miblon: toffehoff, and this is how osgeo presents there financials.
(10:28:29 AM) mkl: member of the foundation
(10:28:41 AM) mkl: and regular participation
(10:28:58 AM) stevenfeldman: so anyone who is foundation memebr can co opt themselves in (I guess that is what I did)
(10:29:22 AM) stevenfeldman: :( not the participation bit :(
(10:29:24 AM) wonderchook is now known as Guest1833
(10:29:24 AM) wonderchook [~katechapm@] entered the room.
(10:30:05 AM) mkl: at the moment, we're open, so anyone can come in. after formalization, i suppose someone needs to request to join. or we'd recruit, if we needed more active participants
(10:30:15 AM) rweait: I think that won't work in future.  In future "and acceptance by 50%+1 of the the current SWG, or assignement by the board"  perhaps?
(10:30:38 AM) rweait: like mkl said. ^^
(10:30:48 AM) chrisfl: although I like a bit of openness, whwere people can feel free to "drop in"
(10:31:09 AM) miblon: Request to join: Yes; close irc meetings; No. I think anyone should be able to "walk in"
(10:31:14 AM) chrisfl: Regular dropins can quickly become formal members of the group?
(10:31:20 AM) miblon: chrisfl, +1
(10:31:28 AM) mkl: +1
(10:31:45 AM) rweait: With the previously noted exception for anonymous participation. +1
(10:31:52 AM) RichardF: +1
(10:31:55 AM) toffehoff: +1
(10:31:56 AM) Guest1833 left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
(10:31:56 AM) miblon: rweait, +1
(10:32:06 AM) mkl: cool
(10:32:25 AM) mkl: well as the only formal member right now, i guess it's up to me to accept you all ;)
(10:32:27 AM) stevenfeldman: baffled by +1 excuse newby
(10:32:47 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: +1 just means "i agree"
(10:32:49 AM) rweait: I move that mkl accept the current attendance of the group as "Members of the SWG" 
(10:32:56 AM) stevenfeldman: +1 :)
(10:32:59 AM) mkl: anyone not want to be a member
(10:33:08 AM) miblon: + 99/99
(10:33:16 AM) mkl: ok you guys are in :)
(10:33:16 AM) toffehoff: pending they are also member of the foundation
(10:33:25 AM) zere: rweait: what's the difference between a formal member and a "walk in"? in practical terms?
(10:33:36 AM) stevenfeldman: voting?
(10:33:37 AM) rweait: No voting rights?
(10:33:43 AM) miblon: U heeft 15,00 GBP overgemaakt naar OpenStreetMap Foundation ( 
(10:33:57 AM) mkl: i think zere means in the swg
(10:34:05 AM) stevenfeldman: initiating a topic for discussion?
(10:34:06 AM) rweait: but still welcome to speak (or at least respond )
(10:34:17 AM) mkl: committed to delivering
(10:35:02 AM) zere: quite. it was suggested that formal membership is revoked after two unexcused absences, so it begs the question of what it is you'd actually be losing.
(10:35:03 AM) miblon: I think everyone can vote, but only swg votes count. It is good if walkins can vote against given they provide good arguments the SWG can benefit from
(10:35:39 AM) zere: from participation in other WGs i'd have to say there's not much voting. maybe i'm on the wrong WGs ;-)
(10:35:42 AM) miblon: Vote: formal membership is revoked after two unexcused absences?
(10:36:18 AM) stevenfeldman: +1
(10:36:50 AM) rweait: +1
(10:37:18 AM) mkl: zere: i think it's important to recognize your own commitment to participating, and for everyone else to be aware
(10:37:20 AM) mkl: +1
(10:37:54 AM) samlarsen1: +1
(10:38:02 AM) chrisfl: +1
(10:38:11 AM) miblon: +1
(10:38:12 AM) rweait: expectation is that apologies in advance are accepted.   
(10:38:16 AM) mkl: we'll close off voting at 9:40
(10:38:19 AM) zere: awesome, then i'll have to give up my formal membership. i can't commit to being at these meetings regularly, i'm afraid.
(10:38:32 AM) mkl: or 40 after (9:40 here)
(10:38:40 AM) ***miblon has another vote pending
(10:38:53 AM) toffehoff: I also wanted to propose another time for these meetings.
(10:38:54 AM) rweait: zere: your insights will be welcomed when you are  able to participate. 
(10:39:04 AM) zere: rweait: thanks :-)
(10:39:56 AM) stevenfeldman: a different time/day would certainly help me
(10:40:07 AM) miblon: vote closed
(10:40:10 AM) miblon: Vote: Should the chair be in a meeting or provide replacement posted on [Strategic] in advance?
(10:40:30 AM) stevenfeldman: replacement
(10:40:36 AM) mkl: I think it should be either chair or Board member
(10:40:49 AM) chrisfl: agree.
(10:41:04 AM) rweait: and when they are not available not meeting?
(10:41:16 AM) miblon: postpone?
(10:41:31 AM) rweait: I think allowing a proxy is prefereable, even if we don't use it. 
(10:41:43 AM) stevenfeldman: what's difference between not meeting and postpone?
(10:42:08 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: no difference in my eyes
(10:42:14 AM) mkl: toffehoff: did board agree that WG can meet without board member present?
(10:42:24 AM) zere: with other WGs it has generally been a policy that if the chair wouldn't be available they would nominate a stand-in. if the chair (or stand-in) were unexpectedly unavailable then someone would pick up that role.
(10:43:07 AM) toffehoff: mkl: We did
(10:44:25 AM) toffehoff: however, if that is more regular than incidental (no presence of board member), that's not what the board had in mind (to my recolection)
(10:45:15 AM) miblon: Vote: Should the chair or a boardmmeber be in a meeting and if not nominate a stand in on [Strategic] in advance?
(10:45:27 AM) mkl: +1
(10:45:30 AM) miblon: mmeber..
(10:45:30 AM) samlarsen1: +1
(10:45:30 AM) Firefishy left the room.
(10:45:32 AM) miblon: +1
(10:45:39 AM) rweait: +1
(10:45:41 AM) chrisfl: +1
(10:45:51 AM) stevenfeldman: +1
(10:45:53 AM) toffehoff: +1
(10:46:59 AM) mkl: closing?
(10:47:05 AM) rweait: clarification?
(10:47:12 AM) mkl: yup
(10:47:20 AM) mkl: rweait?
(10:47:29 AM) rweait: chair should assign board member in advance so we know to expect chair absence? 
(10:47:39 AM) mkl: yes
(10:47:53 AM) rweait: carry on.  :-)
(10:47:57 AM) zere: and if neither happens then the meeting doesn't happen?
(10:48:05 AM) miblon: zere, yup
(10:48:14 AM) rweait: zere: then we send out a search party.
(10:48:17 AM) miblon: I mean, +1
(10:48:24 AM) mkl: ok so we agreed
(10:48:26 AM) miblon: Can I post a new vote?
(10:48:29 AM) mkl: check their gps uploads
(10:48:30 AM) stevenfeldman: I thought we had just voted for a delegate if no chair or board?
(10:48:59 AM) zere: but only in advance on the strategic list. i was asking about if that hadn't happened
(10:49:22 AM) zere: i.e: if the meeting starts but the chair or proxy just doesn't turn up
(10:49:32 AM) mkl: then postpone
(10:49:43 AM) miblon: mkl, +1
(10:49:50 AM) stevenfeldman: ok
(10:49:56 AM) miblon: Vote: What is the minimal ammount of formal members that need to attend for a meeting to be "official"?
(10:50:18 AM) mkl: usually half + 1
(10:50:32 AM) toffehoff: Being?
(10:50:40 AM) miblon: 2?
(10:50:41 AM) zere: some other WGs tend to use 4 as the magic number
(10:51:22 AM) chrisfl: possibly 1/3rd or 2/3rd's and at least 4?
(10:51:30 AM) samlarsen1: does that include idlers (for duration of meeting) on irc?
(10:51:35 AM) rweait: we're a little larger 1/2+1
(10:51:47 AM) toffehoff: If I look at the amount of people actively chatting, 4 or 5 is a good number.
(10:51:52 AM) RichardF: samlarsen1: attendance and speaking are generally separate concepts!
(10:52:02 AM) samlarsen1: ;)
(10:52:05 AM) wonderchook: yeah, I'm here and reading haven't had input at the moment:)
(10:52:11 AM) mkl: yea, should at least say hi RichardF :)
(10:52:38 AM) miblon: Can we agree on what chrisfl proposes? 1/3rd or 2/3rd's and at least 4?
(10:52:45 AM) toffehoff: how many formal members do we have now?
(10:52:49 AM) miblon: 1
(10:52:49 AM) chrisfl: I've no problem with people only speaking up if they need to. 
(10:53:16 AM) mkl: keep it simple, just 4 for quorum
(10:53:17 AM) rweait: 50% + 1 means we need 8 for a meeting.
(10:53:35 AM) samlarsen1: 4
(10:53:42 AM) miblon: 4
(10:53:49 AM) chrisfl: I'm happy with 4
(10:53:51 AM) stevenfeldman left the room.
(10:54:06 AM) toffehoff: If we say that formal members should normally attend. the 50% +1 is a good rule.
(10:54:26 AM) toffehoff: If that is 8, then it needs to be 8.....
(10:54:32 AM) stevenfeldman [] entered the room.
(10:55:05 AM) toffehoff: What's the point in having formal members otherwise?
(10:55:11 AM) samlarsen1: looking at past meeting - we have struggled to make 8
(10:55:17 AM) samlarsen1: meetings(s)
(10:55:30 AM) stevenfeldman: 4 seems reasonable and review after a few months?
(10:55:41 AM) toffehoff: 8 present, not actively participating
(10:56:24 AM) stevenfeldman: Have to say bye now 
(10:56:33 AM) rweait: cheers steven
(10:56:44 AM) stevenfeldman left the room.
(10:56:51 AM) toffehoff: I find it rather strange to say that 4 is the minimum, when not an hour ago we commited ourselves in participating on a regular basis.
(10:57:07 AM) rweait: Gotta be 8 or more. 
(10:57:16 AM) mkl: ok, i think we're batting around being present vs participating
(10:57:26 AM) rweait: If many of us can't make it (say for SotM) then we reschedule. 
(10:57:43 AM) mkl: i suppose if we have trouble meeting quorum, we'd need to reduce membership
(10:57:53 AM) miblon: Got to go. I am expected in Amsterdam at 17:30 which is an hour drive :-( luckily it is informal
(10:58:05 AM) toffehoff: Cheers miblon
(10:58:14 AM) mkl: yea we should wrap up
(10:58:24 AM) chrisfl: Or there may be a face to face meeting say at SotM which not everyone would be able to make.
(10:58:27 AM) toffehoff: One final question: can we move this meeting to another time?
(10:58:40 AM) mkl: looks like we'll decide this next week
(10:58:46 AM) mkl: on quorum
(10:58:48 AM) rweait: toffehoff can we do that in email? 
(10:58:49 AM) miblon: toffehoff, can't drink to much it is the p o l i c e ;-)
(10:58:50 AM) toffehoff: :-)
(10:59:11 AM) mkl: toffehoff: can you send a doodle to the list?
(10:59:13 AM) toffehoff: rweait: sure.
(10:59:21 AM) rweait: mkl quick vote 4 vs 8 ?
(10:59:22 AM) toffehoff: mkl: will do.
(10:59:28 AM) toffehoff: 8
(10:59:30 AM) rweait: 8
(10:59:36 AM) toffehoff: that is: 50% + 1
(10:59:51 AM) rweait: toffehoff currently, yes.
(10:59:53 AM) mkl: rounding up or down? :)
(11:00:15 AM) mkl: ok, 50+1
(11:00:16 AM) miblon: No it is 5:
(11:00:16 AM) RichardF: "a simple majority" i.e. over 50%
(11:00:34 AM) mkl: yup
(11:00:34 AM) toffehoff: RichardF +1
(11:00:40 AM) chrisfl: RicahrdF +1
(11:00:53 AM) miblon: RichardF, +1
(11:01:07 AM) zere: toffehoff: you know how it goes, though. volunteers can find it difficult to find the time, especially for a meeting in the middle of the working afternoon...
(11:01:40 AM) mkl: can we quickly get the last two agenda items
(11:01:42 AM) toffehoff: yes, that's my problem....
(11:02:05 AM) mkl: i think we've passed that one ... and we'll try to set a better time over email
(11:02:19 AM) toffehoff: I'll send a doodle to the list.
(11:02:32 AM) chrisfl: doodle sounds good
(11:02:38 AM) mkl: tile scorecard: toffehoff, last was on your plate. can you still take this on, or needs reassign?
(11:03:01 AM) toffehoff: Will have some time again this weekend. Can do for next meeting.
(11:03:46 AM) mkl: cool
(11:04:25 AM) mkl: finally, comm wg is asking for short meeting summary sent to
(11:04:30 AM) mkl: at the end of every meeting
(11:04:34 AM) rweait: next meeting same./same, unless otherwise agreed by doodle?
(11:04:53 AM) mkl: rweait: yes
(11:04:58 AM) rweait: mkl: I'll do the CWG summary for this week. 
(11:05:13 AM) mkl: cool thx. we just need to keep remembering :)
(11:05:22 AM) rweait: next meeting?
(11:05:41 AM) mkl: rweait: yes not the same time next week, unless we agree otherwise on list
(11:05:51 AM) toffehoff: +1
(11:06:04 AM) mkl: aob? close?
(11:06:15 AM) rweait: sorry, yes or "not"
(11:06:50 AM) toffehoff: Same time next week, unless we decide otherwise on the list.
(11:07:02 AM) mkl: cool
(11:07:18 AM) rweait: Thank you.  Just finishing minutes.
(11:07:20 AM) mkl: we can adjourn
(11:07:27 AM) mkl: thx
(11:07:27 AM) rweait: Move to close? 
(11:07:40 AM) toffehoff: please
(11:08:16 AM) mkl: yes please
(11:08:57 AM) samlarsen1 left the room (quit: Quit: ajax IRC Client).
(11:09:14 AM) rweait: *** end logging ***