|| Chris Fleming
|| Eugene Usvitsky
|| Grant Slater
|| Kai Krueger
|| Mikel Maron
|| Richard Fairhurst
|| Sam Larsen
|| Steven Feldman
|| Henk Hoff
|| Tom Hughes
|| Kate Chapman
- Approved previous minutes
- Discussed some of the more operational items on the wiki, will leave for now in case they can be translated into more strategic actions.
- Moving the meeting to 16:00 UTC
- Continue: Come up with concrete suggestions with how to expand this discussion and strategic planning process to the whole OSMF. Perhaps through the a recommendation to the management team
- wonderchook volunteered to do HOT's list
Next weeks agenda
Next meeting 4th Novemeber 16.00 UTC -
Firefishy joined the chat room.
[14:57] wonderchook joined the chat room.
[15:00] fake_mackerski__ joined the chat room.
[15:02] fake_mackerski__ is now known as fake_mackerski.
[15:04] fake_mackerski: Folks, do I have it right that there is a meeting in 55min?
[15:05] Eugene_h joined the chat room.
[15:06] Eugene left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
[15:06] TomH: fake_mackerski: I thought it was five minutes ago TBH
[15:06] wonderchook: I thought it was now
[15:06] wonderchook: according to my alarm
[15:06] fake_mackerski: 1600 GMT is what's down, I thought...
[15:07] fake_mackerski: And we have DST, so that's not until next hour if I'm right
[15:08] fake_mackerski: Either way, I should be there in an hour, but my Internets are mobile and I might get bitten by some tunnels
[15:09] stevenfeldman joined the chat room.
[15:09] TomH: well last one was 1500 GMT and I wasn't aware of us agreeing to change the time
[15:09] TomH: nothing in the meeting notes either
[15:09] fake_mackerski: Hmm, point
[15:09] stevenfeldman: are we in a meeting or am I an hour late?
[15:10] TomH: stevenfeldman: just debating if you're an hour early
[15:10] fake_mackerski: I know RichardF pre-excused himself for today
[15:10] chrisfl_: I was expecting the meeting now….
[15:11] stevenfeldman: my calendar says 4.00 gmt but I am forever confused about the timing of these meetings
[15:12] fake_mackerski: This page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group#Communication agrees with stevenfeldman's calendar
[15:12] fake_mackerski: Though of course we can fiddle it at will
[15:12] stevenfeldman: is the wiki silently connecting to my calendar if you change it?
[15:12] fake_mackerski: Right now suits me better, since I'll have to leave this train at 18:30 CEST
[15:13] fake_mackerski: That would be a matter for your calendar, I reckon
[15:13] fake_mackerski: Could be a nifty product
[15:14] stevenfeldman: any nifty osm conversations going on today?
[15:16] wonderchook: I can do now, and probably can do in a hour but will be on a bus for part of the time
[15:16] wonderchook: the event I'm at shames you if you are on your laptop at all during certain times:)
[15:17] stevenfeldman: Surely no one would shame a wonderchook?
[15:18] fake_mackerski: Reasons to proceed now: Because we're here now
[15:18] fake_mackerski: Reasons to wait: Others may come along in good faith at the "appointed" time
[15:18] fake_mackerski: Show of hands?
[15:18] stevenfeldman: +1 for now
[15:19] TomH: +1
[15:19] wonderchook: +1
[15:19] chrisfl_: +1
[15:19] fake_mackerski: Looks like a consensus
[15:20] stevenfeldman: are we in meeting then?
[15:20] fake_mackerski: By anarchic consent it would seem so
[15:20] fake_mackerski: The assumption was that Mikel would chair this one.
[15:20] fake_mackerski: Who wants it?
[15:21] wonderchook: well Mikel has been back online since his wedding I don't think
[15:21] wonderchook: I mean "hasn't
[15:21] fake_mackerski: Shall I chair?
[15:21] fake_mackerski: And is anybody in a position to log?
[15:22] fake_mackerski: I don't mind posting the log, but I don't trust this machine to keep one
[15:23] Eugene_h: I'll log in case your machine fails
[15:23] chrisfl_: I can log
[15:31] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
[15:33] padded_mackerski joined the chat room.
[15:34] • padded_mackerski forgot that border crossings are bad for signal
[15:34] padded_mackerski: So whoever stepped in please keep going
[15:34] wonderchook: well, nobody stepped in
[15:34] wonderchook: so
[15:38] fake_mackerski joined the chat room.
[15:39] padded_mackerski: Ok, fair enough
[15:39] padded_mackerski: There was exactly one homework from last meeting
[15:39] padded_mackerski: I myself waited until today to do any of it, and there's still more needs doing
[15:39] padded_mackerski: It was based on RichardF's suggestion to keep a list of suggestions made by the community, good or bad
[15:39] padded_mackerski: If anyone on a real computer can post a link to the wiki page that would be nice
[15:39] • fake_mackerski gets keyboard back - this is the page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Suggestion_review#Infastructure
[15:39] padded_mackerski: Right now there's some content on that page
[15:39] padded_mackerski: Does anybody have some that's not yet entered?
[15:40] stevenfeldman: I started entering content by trawling through talk-us. Still got more to do though
[15:40] TomH: sorry, did I miss the SWG taking over operational decisions from OWG?
[15:40] fake_mackerski: I have more to do too.
[15:40] fake_mackerski: TomH: What decisions?
[15:40] TomH: Use >1 database for performance
[15:41] TomH: Use >1 database for redundancy and resilience
[15:41] fake_mackerski: Last meeting we chose to make a list of suggestions people had made in the past
[15:41] fake_mackerski: Without regard to whether they were good
[15:41] TomH: well I believe I once suggested free ponies for all...
[15:41] fake_mackerski: I added those elements to the list - I don't anticipate them being tackled by SWG
[15:42] fake_mackerski: The list will end up shorter
[15:42] stevenfeldman: afaik these are just a list of suggestions as to waht osmf should be doing
[15:43] fake_mackerski: Either way, it seems clear that we are some way from having a list that can yield decisions
[15:44] fake_mackerski: So an action that needs to be noted is "keep filling the list"
[15:44] wonderchook: well, are there other lists that need to be gone through
[15:44] wonderchook: I can do HOT's list
[15:44] fake_mackerski: Ideal
[15:44] fake_mackerski: Incidentally, in the excitement, I never covered the minutes from last meeting
[15:45] fake_mackerski: Are we happy with them?
[15:46] stevenfeldman: I wasn't at last meeting so cant comment
[15:47] Eugene_h: the minutes are OK
[15:47] fake_mackerski: Anybody who was?
[15:47] fake_mackerski: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-10-07
[15:47] chrisfl_: all I can see is the log?
[15:48] fake_mackerski: chrisfl_: Yes, that's all that's recorded...
[15:49] fake_mackerski: With one single action, to build the list
[15:49] fake_mackerski: That action will be carried forward this time
[15:50] Eugene_h: Regarding last meeting's task - I found difficult to do it the way we meant to do it and as I see from wiki, you had some problems too
[15:50] Eugene_h: I mean that instead of really strategic ideas we still shift to operational because "Routing engine on main website" is really close to forbidden "OSM should rewrite the editor in HTML5"
[15:51] wonderchook: does it make more sense to try to take the ideas and make them more strategic or leave them raw as they are?
[15:51] Eugene_h: The problem is that I personally failed to find any strategic ideas, all I could were technical/operational
[15:52] stevenfeldman: I thought the idea was to trawl for past suggestions about what strategic stuff osmf should be doing so I have been ignoring anything that seemed tech or operational
[15:52] wonderchook: are people really going to give a bunch of flatly strategic ideas? Or say things at are concrete, but maybe there is a greater strategy behind them?
[15:53] wonderchook: for example in the "Use >1 database for redundancy and resilience" comments is there a way to word that so it is more about strategy and less about the OWG?
[15:53] stevenfeldman: If you have the time and patiene to trawl through the lists I think you can discern some patterns that might be phrased as strategic issues
[15:55] stevenfeldman: If we said "should osmf be investing to ensure a high degree of availability for our infrastructure and if so to what extent?" that might be considered strategic
[15:55] Eugene_h: I believe that we should look at tech ideas and then ask ourselves why they should be implemented. This can (probably) help create some strategic vision out of them.
[15:57] wonderchook: I suppose this is similar to discussions on the OSMF list along the lines of "OSMF should hire someone to do X" and figure out really waht is behind this
[15:57] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
[15:58] Eugene_h: yes, something like this
[15:58] padded_mackerski left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
[15:58] Eugene_h: In theory we should have strategy and then implement it with operations. In reality we don't have neither strategy nor any its mentions somewhere so we can do only this way.
[15:59] wonderchook: so I think lets take this approach between now and the next meeting to work on the list?
[16:00] Eugene_h: +1 from me
[16:00] stevenfeldman: Perhaps the trawl through the lists will help us to get a feeling for what people are concerned about (in a strategic sense) as opposed to us just coming up with strategy in isolation and then getting flamed by one and all
[16:00] chrisfl_: that was the plan
[16:00] Eugene_h: we won't avoid flames anyway
[16:01] chrisfl_: The flames come when we categorise and remove things
[16:01] stevenfeldman: chrisfl_ maybe we should be the Asbsetos Coated Working Group
[16:03] wonderchook: well we'd just then get further flamed for causing cancer?
[16:04] wonderchook: anyway, is there anything else we need to talk about other than the making of the list?
[16:04] fake_mackerski joined the chat room.
[16:04] padded_mackerski joined the chat room.
[16:05] fake_mackerski: Anybody still here?
[16:05] chrisfl_: yes
[16:05] stevenfeldman: me. I'm back into talk-us
[16:05] fake_mackerski: I _may_ have a solid connection now
[16:05] wonderchook: so fake_mackerski we were talking about trying to take strategic ideas from the more concrete ones on the lists
[16:05] chrisfl_: I think we're just coming towards a close….
[16:06] wonderchook: so we have more themes than specific "do this"
[16:06] Firefishy left the chat room.
[16:06] fake_mackerski: As I vanished, we were OK with the minutes
[16:06] fake_mackerski: I'll catch up on that from the log rather than have people repeat themselves
[16:06] fake_mackerski: Yup
[16:07] fake_mackerski: Already the wiki headings are a mixture of where the ideas were voiced and what kind of idea they are
[16:07] fake_mackerski: The latter may prove more useful
[16:08] stevenfeldman: are we wrapping up now? I need to go. Will try to complete my trawl by next meeting (only 20 months left)
[16:08] fake_mackerski: I think that's wise - this train arrives in 5 minutes anyway
[16:08] wonderchook: yeah, I think we were ready to wrapup
[16:08] fake_mackerski: Any last issues before close?
[16:08] stevenfeldman: bye everyone, in a fortnight but at what time?
[16:08] wonderchook: none for me!
[16:08] chrisfl_: Stick to 3pm UTC or move with the clocks?
[16:09] chrisfl_: fake_mackerski: log so far: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-10-21
[16:09] wonderchook left the chat room. (Quit: wonderchook)
[16:10] stevenfeldman: chisfl_ either works a s long as we all know when we are meant to be meeting
[16:11] phoney_mackerski joined the chat room.
[16:11] chrisfl_: indeed! Shall we move to 16UTC and keep the meeting at the same "time"? I
[16:11] stevenfeldman: +1 for that
[16:11] Eugene_h: I agree.
[16:12] chrisfl_: any objections?
[16:12] phoney_mackerski: chrisfl_: Sure
[16:12] phoney_mackerski: No wiki fiddling required
[16:12] fake_mackerski left the chat room. (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[16:12] phoney_mackerski left the chat room. (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[16:12] Eugene_h: chrisfl_: why in log I am listed as absent? I'm here
[16:13] chrisfl_: I've not done that bit yet… Just cut and pasted from a previous meeting
[16:13] phoney_mackerski joined the chat room.
[16:13] Eugene_h: Ah.. OK
[16:14] chrisfl_: Cool next meeting 4th Novemeber 16.00 UTC - I'll try sending out a google calendar invite with that time in, if that's useful?
[16:15] stevenfeldman: Very useful chrisfl_ thx
[16:18] chrisfl_: for attendance purposes are rweait and blackadder watching?