<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><head><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml><o:OfficeDocumentSettings><o:AllowPNG/><o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch></o:OfficeDocumentSettings></xml><![endif]--></head><body>
Simon, agree that’s a danger. I think the starting point is not a list of technical tasks, but strategic goals that have technical implications and to which technical needs can be linked. Connect up the tech to overall purpose.<div><br></div><div>For instance, the data privacy for gdpr compliance is a osmf goal. To achieve that there’s a specific implementation need. The EWG needs to look at all means to achieve it — thus far putting out a cfp (repeatedly) has not turned up any rails devs. We need to think about why, and evaluate changes of tactics.<br><br>At yesterday’s board meeting we talked about various MWG needs to connect civicrm and OSM.org. So another example.</div><div><br></div><div>It’s not all “boring”. There’s always a swirl of ideas to refresh OSM.org landing page. Primarily that’s a communication and design question, but for ewg the question is how ready is the rails app for implementing new designs.</div><div><div><br>Mikel<br><p class="yahoo-quoted-begin" style="font-size: 15px; color: #715FFA; padding-top: 15px; margin-top: 0">On Friday, November 20, 2020, 6:04 AM, Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch> wrote:</p><blockquote class="iosymail"><div dir="ltr">Without at least some guidance from the board on purpose and scope I see <br clear="none">a real danger of this turning in to yet another iteration of "lets make <br clear="none">a top ten list of stuff that might attract devs" with more money, aka <br clear="none">not just GSOC, thrown in as the sole change. With the boring stuff that <br clear="none">"actually needs to be done" (tm), being ignored. it isn't as if we don't <br clear="none">have the experience of numerous failed EWG reboots.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Examples:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">- the data privacy related work that needs on the API, the website and <br clear="none">data distribution, this is probably the best defined and scoped work <br clear="none">that has ever existed in the history of OSM, still it has made zero <br clear="none">progress over the last three years,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">- putting a system in place to manage third party sources, permissions <br clear="none">to use them and provide attribution in a scaleable fashion <br clear="none">(realistically just providing the mechanics for this wont be enough, as <br clear="none">the clean up itself has to be organized and that could easily require <br clear="none">multiple man years of clerical work).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I'm sure there are other similar items from operations and <br clear="none">communications that are simply never going to make any kind of list <br clear="none">without the EWG actually being made -responsible- for clearly defined <br clear="none">outcomes instead of a lot of hand waving that will simply gyrate to <br clear="none">projects that result in the largest amount of back patting (iD etc).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Simon<br clear="none"><div class="yqt7783500598" id="yqtfd88766"><br clear="none">Am 19.11.2020 um 17:09 schrieb Paul Norman via dev:<br clear="none">> The OSMF Board is looking at restarting the Engineering Working Group <br clear="none">> with a revised scope to include handling paid software development. <br clear="none">> This scope needs to be developed with existing and new volunteers, but <br clear="none">> my ideas are that it would include<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> - Google Summer of Code,<br clear="none">> - managing development to be paid by the OSMF by contracts and grants, <br clear="none">> and<br clear="none">> - collaborating with other organizations for multi-organization grants.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> It would do this by by<br clear="none">> - placing calls for proposals for paid work on topics like top ten tasks;<br clear="none">> - accepting other proposals;<br clear="none">> - defining an approximate distribution of OSMF funds for development <br clear="none">> between primary/secondary/tertiary services, external services, and <br clear="none">> new services;<br clear="none">> - encouraging applications from skilled individuals who aren't <br clear="none">> professional developers, professional contractors, companies, and others.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Once the scope and funding distribution guidelines are defined we <br clear="none">> would want to start with low-risk projects involving experienced <br clear="none">> people who need less management.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> If you are interested in changing the EWG to handle these roles, <br clear="none">> please let me know.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">> dev mailing list<br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org">dev@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev</a></div></div><div class="yqt7783500598" id="yqtfd41086">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">dev mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org">dev@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev</a><br clear="none"></div><blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div></div>
</body></html>