Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-02-04

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • _chrisfl: Chris Fleming
  • cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
  • Eugene: Eugene Usvitsky
  • Firefishy: Grant Slater
  • 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


Milo van der Linden


  • proposed: Steven Feldman
  • seconded: Kate Chapman
  • no objections
  • minutes accepted
  • Review agenda
  • tile scorecard
  • budgeting process
  • SWG formalization
  • New item, Wikimapia license issues
  • Budgeting process discussion
  • Current process document needs testing. Potentially over-engineered for our requirements. Further refinement for next week. Kate and Steven to lead discussion and "test run" on mailing list.
  • Tile scorecard discussion
  • Henk's draft scorecard is already getting some use.
  • minor live-revisions to wiki scorecard. Positive reactions to first draft of score card.
  • reflect and review for next meeting. Ideally add some more sample layers to the score card.
  • Routing discussion
  • Eugene and Chris to draft Routing services score card and policy for next week.
  • Other items deferred at top of the hour.
  • Next meeting on #osm-strategic February 11 at 1600H UTC
  • Meeting closed.

IRC log

(10:59:36 AM) rweait: *** Logging started ***
(11:00:25 AM) rweait: Previous minutes are here for review and accpetance.  
(11:00:27 AM) rweait:
(11:00:29 AM) toffehoff [] entered the room.
(11:00:47 AM) TomH: delpong
(11:02:01 AM) mkl: need one more present for quorum
(11:02:04 AM) RichardF: pong
(11:02:08 AM) mkl: tada!
(11:02:16 AM) RichardF: sorry, could not see screen due to cat in way
(11:02:21 AM) mkl: can anyone propose and second last weeks minutes
(11:02:37 AM) stevenfeldman: proposed
(11:02:58 AM) wonderchook: hello
(11:03:42 AM) mkl: RichardF: great, maybe we can count that as two attendees
(11:04:10 AM) Stowford_the_cat [] entered the room.
(11:04:14 AM) mkl: just need a second on the minutes to start
(11:04:27 AM) wonderchook: seconding:)
(11:04:49 AM) mkl: ok here's the agenda
(11:04:53 AM) Eugene [~eugene@] entered the room.
(11:04:54 AM) Firefishy: Can I add an agenda item.
(11:05:00 AM) mkl:  Budgeting process review. Please give feedback to Milo, Kate, and Frederik for a revision on Friday.
(11:05:04 AM) rweait: no objections to minutes of previous meeting?  
(11:05:13 AM) mkl: Firefishy: for sure
(11:05:26 AM) Firefishy: - From TWG: Wikimapia tile usage. There are questions there about whether
(11:05:26 AM) Firefishy: they’re implicitly promoting copyright infringement. Especially given their recent “license”
(11:05:26 AM) Firefishy: activity.
(11:05:28 AM) mkl:  Tile layers scorecard. Henk has a start
(11:05:36 AM) mkl: Routing. We have a request to consider Routing on the OSM website.
(11:05:42 AM) mkl: Formalizing the working group. Any details we missed last meeting?
(11:06:28 AM) mkl: Firefishy: is that more of a legal issue?
(11:06:37 AM) Firefishy: Wikimapia has OpenStreetMap Mapnik tiles as one of their available layers.
(11:06:53 AM) mkl: we can discuss after the current items
(11:07:20 AM) mkl: Ok
(11:07:27 AM) mkl: So Milo sent apologies
(11:07:51 AM) mkl: he told me he hasn't done anything further
(11:08:06 AM) zere: iirc from a legal point of view they're in compliance. it's just that from a social / strategic point of view they're maybe not abiding by the spirit of it...
(11:08:10 AM) mkl: and maybe someone else could take the lead from here and producing revisions and getting feedback
(11:08:30 AM) mkl: zere: ok got it. added to the agenda
(11:09:13 AM) Stowford_the_cat left the room (quit: Quit: CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)).
(11:09:19 AM) mkl: we're behind on the budgeting thing. can someone put some time into it?
(11:09:47 AM) wonderchook: mkl: I can put some time into it this weekend. 
(11:10:37 AM) mkl: cool. what won't you do for maps?
(11:10:50 AM) mkl: what else are you all thinking about this?
(11:11:19 AM) toffehoff: had to end a phonecall.... Hello everybody!
(11:11:47 AM) rweait: We need to test our budget procedure.  
(11:11:54 AM) mkl: welcome Henk
(11:12:05 AM) rweait: Can SWG come up with our budget?
(11:12:07 AM) mkl: rweait: eat our own dog food
(11:13:31 AM) mkl: makes sense. the aim should be guidance and a procedure that would be sufficient enough for us ourselves
(11:13:36 AM) rweait left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.).
(11:13:47 AM) mkl: i think we have a revision or two to get there
(11:14:00 AM) rweait [~nerd@] entered the room.
(11:14:01 AM) wonderchook: yeah, I think it needs to be a bit simpler and a little more flexible.
(11:14:08 AM) rweait: sorry. 
(11:14:23 AM) stevenfeldman: It felt rather over engineered to me, particularly for a volunteer org
(11:16:30 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: do you have any examples or suggestions for wonderchook?
(11:17:18 AM) mkl: I'm going to close this item at 20 after
(11:17:52 AM) stevenfeldman: Problem is most systems I have worked with are for large orgs with finance teams and 12 month rolling planning processes. We need something simple and usable by volunteers
(11:18:38 AM) mkl: yea, we're pretty atypical
(11:18:50 AM) ***chrisfl has just made it back to my desk, catching up....
(11:19:05 AM) zere: the dogfooding should be enough to check if it's too onerous, right?
(11:19:15 AM) stevenfeldman: Before we try to reinvent the wheel why don't we run through the swg budget with current proposal, learn from that what worked and didn't and then consider revising
(11:19:53 AM) rweait: perhaps steven and kate to kcick that off on the mailling list?
(11:20:10 AM) wonderchook: rweait: revising it or going through the process?
(11:20:15 AM) mkl: +1
(11:20:20 AM) rweait: both-ish?
(11:20:28 AM) wonderchook: okay, sounds good
(11:20:29 AM) rweait: the test run may suggest the revisions.
(11:20:36 AM) stevenfeldman: let's go through the process first
(11:20:50 AM) ***chrisfl back in real time
(11:21:13 AM) mkl: i think it could use some quick cleaning up
(11:21:45 AM) mkl: wonderchook, stevenfeldman: are you two ok to work this out?
(11:22:11 AM) mkl: we should get to the next item...
(11:22:17 AM) rweait:
(11:22:25 AM) rweait: awesome start.
(11:22:29 AM) rweait: We've had help.
(11:22:30 AM) stevenfeldman: sure, wonderchook can we try a skype call rather than irc or mails?
(11:22:42 AM) wonderchook: sure no problem
(11:22:47 AM) rweait: use mail so we can all help.
(11:22:55 AM) rweait: or at least review to email.
(11:23:10 AM) rweait: And by help i mean "kvetch".
(11:23:41 AM) mkl: cool. let's close that
(11:23:49 AM) mkl: toffehoff ... nice!
(11:24:03 AM) samlarsen1: toffehoff +1
(11:24:07 AM) toffehoff: thanx
(11:24:28 AM) mkl: I'd suggest removing the first line, just giving instructions above or below
(11:24:43 AM) rweait: Nah, I like the example. 
(11:24:56 AM) toffehoff: We could move to the bottom.
(11:25:05 AM) toffehoff: As a sort of copy this line first....
(11:25:26 AM) mkl: ok ... just clearly label example?
(11:25:29 AM) rweait: Perhaps an example section at the bottom?
(11:25:36 AM) mkl: why is minutely a different shade of green?
(11:25:54 AM) rweait: ask amm.
(11:25:56 AM) toffehoff: Might be another template....
(11:26:29 AM) toffehoff: Yup. The template green was used instead of the OK template.
(11:26:57 AM) mkl: ok
(11:26:59 AM) rweait: Could we make a decision from this?  
(11:27:00 AM) stevenfeldman: Is this meant to be a gated sort of decision tree to provide clarity about how we decide what tile sets to incorporate or link to?
(11:27:16 AM) mkl: should this just be combined with the tile layers policy page?
(11:27:28 AM) rweait: cross-linked I think.
(11:27:34 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: it's more a set of guidelines to make that decision
(11:27:38 AM) rweait: One for policy, one for data
(11:27:39 AM) mkl:
(11:27:50 AM) toffehoff: It has a link to this page.
(11:27:57 AM) mkl: ok
(11:28:07 AM) toffehoff: second line.
(11:28:14 AM) chrisfl: I think we planned to leave the actual decision making to the TWG where requests came it, and they would refer if answer not clear?
(11:28:26 AM) mkl: so based on this, would TWG now decide on including mq?
(11:29:15 AM) mkl: the mq question is what what touched off the creation of this policy
(11:29:16 AM) toffehoff: The non-commercial was not a mandatory requirement.
(11:29:27 AM) toffehoff: It was preferable.
(11:29:42 AM) toffehoff: Look at the slight different shade of red of the column header ;-)
(11:29:45 AM) samlarsen1: do we need to include a 'date assessed' column - as a layer may be re-assessed after a period of time if it has improved compliance
(11:29:53 AM) chrisfl: It's a good test, I would need to look at the old minutes/logs but I think that TomH agreed they were happy to do this?
(11:30:09 AM) toffehoff: The remarks field?
(11:30:15 AM) toffehoff: ... at the end?
(11:30:18 AM) rweait: samlarsen!, that would be in the history, but not bad to call it out in the data too.
(11:30:24 AM) RichardF: have added "Required" and "Preferred" to make it clearer
(11:30:43 AM) rweait: RichardF +1
(11:30:52 AM) TomH: chrisfl: happy to do what?
(11:31:06 AM) toffehoff: RichardF +1
(11:31:14 AM) Eugene: RichardF +1
(11:31:22 AM) rweait: TomH: approve guest tile sets.
(11:31:30 AM) chrisfl: TomH Look at requests for additional tile layers?
(11:31:51 AM) zere: the preferred includes uniqueness and interestingness, which i think MQ both fail on.
(11:31:53 AM) RichardF: and moved the explanatory line to the bottom. (I'll make a wikifiddler yet ;) )
(11:32:13 AM) zere: and have MQ asked to be on the main page? if not they'd also fail "support".
(11:32:24 AM) TomH: no they haven;t asked
(11:32:35 AM) TomH: apmon asked (and asked them if they minded)
(11:32:50 AM) rweait: No reason why we can't use them in this example...
(11:33:34 AM) toffehoff: extended the preferred with uniq and int.
(11:34:34 AM) rweait: I like it and like that we are bike-shedding it so thouroghly.  ;-)
(11:34:57 AM) rweait: Is the score card done?
(11:35:02 AM) mkl: it looks great
(11:35:11 AM) chrisfl: See: for agreement for TWG to evaluate requests for layers
(11:35:14 AM) mkl: can we now ask TWG to consider MapQuest
(11:35:33 AM) rweait: maybe review the scorecard this week, and make a call next week?
(11:35:36 AM) mkl: and once we get that response, we'll want to post on opengeodata about the policy and scorecard, etc
(11:36:15 AM) rweait: I think publish that we are accepting proposals first, before we accept one.
(11:36:33 AM) toffehoff: ... and use the week to add more tile-layers?
(11:36:41 AM) toffehoff: so we have a more complete overview
(11:36:56 AM) chrisfl: are we expecting lots of requests?
(11:37:38 AM) toffehoff: dunno. But we can also hint on tile layers we may find interesting ourselves.
(11:37:54 AM) stevenfeldman: Are we saying that all of the ticks in boxes have equal wait in the required section (and again in the preferred)
(11:38:18 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman, nope.
(11:38:42 AM) mkl: so the plan, would be ... review and add to the scorecard this week. if we're happy by next meeting, announce it, and at the same time, ask TWG to review the MQ request
(11:38:53 AM) rweait left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).
(11:39:01 AM) stevenfeldman: surely some are more important than others?
(11:39:02 AM) rweait [~nerd@] entered the room.
(11:39:19 AM) samlarsen1: i think we should ask MQ rep to make a formal request to TWG (for transparency)
(11:39:37 AM) TomH: I don't thnik they will
(11:39:40 AM) zere: i think we should ask MQ if it's even someting they want
(11:39:45 AM) mkl: why would request need to come from the provider?
(11:39:58 AM) RichardF: zere: +1
(11:39:59 AM) mkl: my understanding that community asked about it, and MQ was ok with it
(11:40:00 AM) TomH: zere: I understand they told apmon they weren't bothered either way
(11:40:19 AM) stevenfeldman: because they would need to be able to cope with the load?
(11:40:19 AM) samlarsen1: zere +1
(11:40:19 AM) rweait: They need to be willing to be on our site, they don't need to ask.  We can ask a provider. 
(11:40:22 AM) zere: because that's the first requirement - that the provider actually wants to, and will actively support, their position on the front page
(11:40:53 AM) Eugene: ...and have resources to do that (for sure, MQ has)
(11:40:55 AM) mkl: so can TWG ask Hurricane or whoever what they think?
(11:40:58 AM) stevenfeldman: who has actually asked to be included?
(11:41:08 AM) TomH: as I say , they told apmon they were happy for us to do it if we wanted
(11:41:16 AM) zere: mkl: sure. i'll ask ant directly
(11:41:18 AM) rweait: mkl: let's wait until we've published the policy and scorecad.
(11:41:18 AM) TomH: but they weren't actively seeking to be included
(11:41:25 AM) TomH: that should be in apmon's mail that started this
(11:42:01 AM) mkl: rweait: agreed. let's have the publication next week after review and additions
(11:42:16 AM) mkl: then we'll kick the MQ request by apmon to TWG
(11:42:49 AM) rweait: next?  
(11:43:04 AM) mkl: next is ... routing
(11:43:13 AM) mkl:
(11:43:31 AM) mkl: this is related to the services discussion a while back
(11:44:21 AM) TomH: is there a strategic decision to be made though? other than whether or not we would like to have routing if/when a suiteable solution is available
(11:44:37 AM) rweait: TomH +1
(11:44:39 AM) mkl: i guess there's two things
(11:45:16 AM) mkl: one is that it would be good to have a assessment of the available routing engines, and the hardware requirements in place
(11:45:21 AM) Firefishy: mkl: There are multiple routing engines... choosing which one to run with is not an easy choice.
(11:45:50 AM) chrisfl: The strategic decision is, does routing on help the goals of osm. I believe so.
(11:46:00 AM) mkl: second are guidelines to decide if routing (or any other service) should be included in
(11:46:10 AM) mkl: chrisfl: +1
(11:46:44 AM) chrisfl: getting the right technical solution and integration is a much harder thing as Firefishy says.
(11:46:45 AM) mkl: Firefishy: agreed. what guidance or steps for developers can help?
(11:46:52 AM) stevenfeldman: routing helps some goals but may cause other problems with performance and disputes over why that engine?
(11:46:54 AM) Firefishy: gosmore engine has been shown to work, but realistically only has 1 developer, who at the moment is the only person who could support it.
(11:47:06 AM) TomH: well "don't be obnoxious" would be a good start in at least one case....
(11:47:08 AM) samlarsen1: chrisfl +1 - maybe we can utilise a generous external supplier of routing via web service
(11:47:35 AM) TomH: Firefishy: I dispute that - the routing may be scalable but I don't beleive the update side has been shown to be workable yet
(11:47:56 AM) mkl: like tiles, can criteria be drawn up?
(11:47:57 AM) rweait: if it's external, can we generalize to support multiple external routers?
(11:48:06 AM) rweait: why tie to one source?
(11:48:13 AM) TomH: rweait: I believe somebody is already looking at that
(11:48:17 AM) samlarsen1: or list of external suppliers
(11:48:26 AM) stevenfeldman: this could be a minefield for us atm
(11:48:37 AM) mkl: from TomH, Firefishy, I hear that multiple developers would be one, and updating would be another
(11:48:38 AM) RichardF: rweait1: absolutely - no way should it be tied to one source
(11:48:52 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: welcome to the committee. ;-)
(11:49:05 AM) mkl: kaboom!
(11:49:08 AM) ***RichardF tries to work out how to capitalise us atm
(11:49:18 AM) RichardF: (US ATM? us ATM? :) )
(11:49:21 AM) rweait left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).
(11:49:22 AM) Eugene: why can't we do the same as with tiles?
(11:49:32 AM) RichardF: Eugene: precisely :)
(11:49:32 AM) rweait [~nerd@] entered the room.
(11:49:32 AM) Eugene: scorecard and the rest?
(11:49:41 AM) samlarsen1: Eugene +1
(11:49:50 AM) mkl: +1
(11:50:02 AM) TomH: a routing specific scorecard? or a general service addition scorecard?
(11:50:15 AM) samlarsen1: routing specific
(11:50:15 AM) stevenfeldman: Can we scorecard for inclusion on a list rather than incorporating on OSM servers?
(11:50:32 AM) TomH: don't understand what you mean?
(11:50:32 AM) rweait: Eugene; Your ID for the record please?
(11:50:41 AM) toffehoff:
(11:50:52 AM) Eugene: rweait: Eugene Usvitsky
(11:50:56 AM) chrisfl: Well a routing scorecard, would at least be a fair way of saying what the requirements are, 
(11:50:56 AM) mkl: i think going general service would be too complicated without a few examples first. and that would be more about whether the Foundation should find more resources for things, if necessary
(11:51:08 AM) chrisfl: mkl +1
(11:51:17 AM) Eugene: sure, it should be routing specific
(11:51:34 AM) wonderchook: sorry folks, I gotta run stevenfeldman I'll send you an email
(11:51:51 AM) stevenfeldman: wonderchook: thx
(11:51:55 AM) chrisfl: A general service scorecard would need to refer to longer term "strategic" goals.....
(11:51:57 AM) toffehoff: wonderchook have a good weekend!
(11:52:04 AM) Eugene: for routing the speed of answer is important, the max distance of 1 route, the speed of data updates
(11:52:11 AM) mkl: toffehoff: looks like a good start. could that be expanded and cleaned up to include whatever else is important?
(11:52:45 AM) TomH: well that page is about specific web services rather than the engines behind them
(11:52:56 AM) TomH: so it has YOURS (which uses gosmore) but not gosmore itself
(11:53:15 AM) Eugene: support of turn-by-turn navigation, car/bicycle/pedestrian(/truck?) routing
(11:53:29 AM) mkl: TomH: it's the same with tiles. we're not trying to score mapnik vs t@h
(11:53:42 AM) toffehoff:
(11:53:45 AM) mkl: but rather the quality of the service
(11:53:50 AM) Firefishy: some requirements: global, able to handle high load, reasonable update system, supported (by developers)
(11:54:03 AM) TomH: mkl: my point is that the system which started this and which is being thrust down our throats is not on thr listy
(11:54:27 AM) mkl: Eugene: would you be willing to take a crack at this?
(11:54:30 AM) TomH: must not attempt to augment data heuristically
(11:54:44 AM) Eugene: mkl: why not?
(11:54:47 AM) mkl: TomH: gotcha. my hope is that having this in place can deflect that
(11:54:49 AM) TomH: ie - no guessing whether or not roads are joined, just trust the OSM topology data
(11:55:06 AM) TomH: otherwise it is useless for QA which would be the main point of offering it
(11:55:15 AM) Eugene: TomH: +!
(11:55:34 AM) TomH: only I have reason to believe gosmore does try and make such guesses
(11:56:26 AM) Eugene: but Gosmore is a software, not service anyway
(11:56:40 AM) Firefishy: strategic question: Only available on OR public API but require osm login OR fully public API.
(11:56:46 AM) TomH: why does it need to be a service? the whole point would be for us to run it
(11:57:07 AM) Firefishy: Eugene: The routing engine would most likely be hosted on OSM hardware.
(11:57:17 AM) mkl: not necessarily. we currently make tiles, but also have other service's tiles included
(11:57:18 AM) Eugene: So it should be installed somewhere and supported there. Why would we need to have additional problems if thhere are so many external services, including based on Gosmore?
(11:57:19 AM) stevenfeldman: tomh: do we have resources to run and support a routing engine?
(11:57:42 AM) TomH: well we would arrange to have them if that was what we wanted
(11:57:54 AM) Firefishy: stevenfeldman: hardware would have to be purchased. At as guesstimate: ~£6000
(11:57:57 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: surely tiles are different to a processor intensive app like routing
(11:58:01 AM) chrisfl: I think that just having it on meets the goals. Other services provide external API's
(11:58:09 AM) TomH: Eugene: I am opposed to having anything much on the main home page depend on external sites - it's an admin nightmare
(11:58:09 AM) RichardF: rendering tiles is pretty processor intensive
(11:58:34 AM) TomH: I mean we might offer a choice of third party engines as well like we do with tiles
(11:58:45 AM) TomH: but I would like the default to be "in house"
(11:58:56 AM) mkl: +1
(11:59:09 AM) mkl: ok, almost top of the hour
(11:59:13 AM) stevenfeldman: -1
(11:59:17 AM) chrisfl: +1 we don't want to only rely on external services for
(11:59:22 AM) Eugene: well, it looks reasonable
(11:59:31 AM) mkl: looks like there's much more to talk about
(11:59:40 AM) samlarsen1: chrisfl -1 - external tiles??
(11:59:42 AM) RichardF: +1 - should aim to build up its own skills, as well as encouraging an ecosystem
(12:00:02 PM) chrisfl: sam - they are options not the default. 
(12:00:05 PM) mkl: Eugene, could you take a stab at something like the tile layers policy and scorecard, but for routing services/engines?
(12:00:22 PM) chrisfl: the main map still works if they vanish
(12:00:27 PM) Eugene: mkl: ok
(12:00:31 PM) rweait: let's have at least one other to assist / collaborate?
(12:01:00 PM) mkl: ok ... anyone else on this one? TomH?
(12:01:12 PM) stevenfeldman: routing is one of the core business drivers for some orgs trying to create sustainable revenues on top of OSM are we straying into their zone?
(12:01:23 PM) chrisfl: I'm happy to help Eugene
(12:01:45 PM) mkl: stevenfeldman: straying into others business is what OSM has done from the beginning :)
(12:01:50 PM) rweait: stevenfeldman: good discussion topic for the list?
(12:01:50 PM) mkl: ok
(12:01:52 PM) RichardF: stevenfeldman: OSM doesn't attempt to rival those businesses for providing tiles - routing would be the same
(12:01:56 PM) Eugene: chrisfl: Glad to hear. Welcome!
(12:01:56 PM) samlarsen1: mkl +1
(12:02:03 PM) mkl: so 1 hour
(12:02:12 PM) mkl: we had two more agenda items
(12:02:14 PM) rweait: same/same next week?
(12:02:16 PM) mkl: ok to table til next week?
(12:02:19 PM) RichardF: - "Commercial services, or those that seek donations, should be especially aware that access may be withdrawn at any point"
(12:02:32 PM) stevenfeldman: mkl ho ho but we may want to support those who support us
(12:02:58 PM) chrisfl: stevenfeldman - I don't care to a certain extent. But hopefully will be a different slant.
(12:03:10 PM) Firefishy: stevenfeldman: I personally do not believe we should offer routing as a public service. Available to developers as a data quality testing service yes... But not for other apps.
(12:03:20 PM) mkl: for sure agreed. i think serves a different function anyhow. we're never going to market the same as MQ, for example. but anyway .. 
(12:03:26 PM) stevenfeldman: firefishy +1
(12:03:31 PM) toffehoff: Firefishy +1
(12:03:34 PM) Eugene: Firefishy +1
(12:03:39 PM) Firefishy: public service = API. available on yes.
(12:03:50 PM) chrisfl: +1
(12:03:55 PM) mkl: +1
(12:04:01 PM) samlarsen1: ok: !=
(12:04:04 PM) samlarsen1: +1
(12:04:05 PM) mkl: :)
(12:04:10 PM) rweait: move to adjourn?
(12:04:20 PM) mkl: yes, let's adjourn
(12:04:22 PM) stevenfeldman: rwealt yes pls
(12:04:29 PM) mkl: thanks everyone, great discussion
(12:04:30 PM) samlarsen1: good meeting guys - have nice weekend ;)
(12:04:37 PM) toffehoff: Same time next week?
(12:04:37 PM) stevenfeldman: have a good w/end all, laters
(12:04:48 PM) rweait: *** Logging ended **