[Osmf-talk] Seeking feedback and interest in the OSMF Engineering Working Group

Michal Migurski mike at teczno.com
Wed Jul 14 20:06:23 UTC 2021


> On Jul 14, 2021, at 11:34 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-07-14 10:52 a.m., Michal Migurski wrote:
>> Thanks for working on this, Mikel! An active EWG is necessary for the stability and longevity of OSM.
>> 
>> I’d like to see the proposed charter address motivation and cooperation with the OWG.
> The OWG is responsible for forecasting of demand, purchasing of hardware, budgeting, etc. It is explicitly not responsible for developing software. Are you thinking of the EWG requesting resources for tasks like CI runners, dev ("tool") server resources and the like?

Yes exactly, that’d be one set of adjoining responsibilities. Others might include tasks that should fall under the SSRE job description funded last year, more broadly categorized as operational work that makes engineering possible. We’re twelve years on from Allspaw & Hammond’s “DevOps” talk describing how development and operations teams must collaborate without hard boundaries. (https://www.bunnyshell.com/blog/history-of-devops/)


> Just like the names of specific pieces of software aren't hard-coded into the scope of the working group, I don't think specific numbers for one software project belong there either. If someone had proposals to improve the developer experience on an in-scope software project, they would certainly be considered by the EWG. 
> 
> Some of the ideas you have also seem outside the scope of the OSMF. See the last two points on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement#Scope_of_the_OSMF

We should use measurable numbers that include specific software contributions and move them in-scope for the EWG. We won’t know that we’re addressing the community’s #1 priority (“Stability of the core infrastructure: hardware, software, human capital,” https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/diary/395962) from the recent OSMF community survey unless we’re quite specific about the EWG’s remit and the ways we know it’s working. I would propose that EWG focus on four core repositories: Chef, iD, Website, and JOSM.

OSMF scope can be changed based on goals and priorities.

-mike.

----------------------------------------------------------------
michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html







More information about the osmf-talk mailing list