[Strategic] 2012

Kate Chapman kate at maploser.com
Fri Feb 3 05:00:01 GMT 2012


Is there a meeting tomorrow? Or is it next week?

My dates are all confused since we got a slow start to the new year.

-Kate

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mikel,
>
> Sorry for overlooking your earlier mail on this. I can pick this up,
> with the caveat that I've burnt midnight oil, am off to bed about now
> and will therefore probably have it finished not that long before the
> meeting start tomorrow.
>
> So if anyone else plans to pick it up, say so here and I won't bother,
> otherwise I'll take care of it.
>
> Cheers,
> Dermot
>
> On 2 February 2012 20:38, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi Strategic
>>
>> Would anyone be willing to compile together the discussion from the thread,
>> and the irc chat, into a rough draft 2012 plan for SWG?
>>
>> For the things that don't seem to be settled yet, it would be totally cool
>> to highlight the field of play on the issue.
>>
>> -Mikel
>>
>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>
>> To: Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com>; Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>> Cc: "strategic at openstreetmap.org" <strategic at openstreetmap.org>
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 10:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Strategic] 2012
>>
>> Hi ... IRC log attached. Will upload to wiki soon, but swamped right now.
>>
>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com>
>> To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>> Cc: strategic at openstreetmap.org
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Strategic] 2012
>>
>> Hi Frederik,
>>
>> I'll try to address your questions:
>>
>> On 30 January 2012 08:32, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>>
>>>   who was present in Friday's IRC meeting?
>>>
>>> (Not wanting to nag since I know minutes are a pain, but I would have
>>> checked myself on
>>>
>>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#Strategic_Working_Group
>>> if there had been any more recent minutes/logs than 2nd December 2012.)
>>
>> Firstly on the apparent minutes backlog - what that in fact represents
>> is a meeting backlog, as SWG hadn't got back into the habit of meeting
>> since the Christmas break. Not ideal, but it's worth being clear that
>> there has not been a batch of unminuted meetings.
>>
>> As to the attendees, I have neither a firm list nor a complete IRC
>> transcript. Mikel chaired, but it took him 10 minutes after the usual
>> start time to get a reaction from other participants (that was when I
>> spotted that there was in fact activity), during which time he had
>> begun to compose his Friday email, which he intended to send in lieu
>> of the meeting, so that the next meeting could take place in the
>> framework of a planned list of topics, seeded by his email and
>> enriched by contributions from others.
>>
>> It may be that Mikel has the IRC transcript and could post it as a
>> "best set" of minutes, but in effect, after our late start with a
>> small group, we resolved instead to discuss those items that we felt
>> should be on agenda for SWG in 2012. I agreed to send my followup mail
>> by way of communicating the matters discussed at the meeting.
>>
>> Participants who were certainly present: Me, Mikel, apmon, TomH.
>> Others please shout if I have overlooked you. Mikel, do you have the
>> complete transcript? I have only the very tail end which RichardF
>> happened still to have in his buffer.
>>
>>> On 01/30/12 00:55, Dermot McNally wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Arising once again because of the switch2osm campaign: Confront the
>>>> issue of where users wishing to use OSM instead of other providers
>>>> should get their services. Base assumption (also for discussion): That
>>>> there should be suitable map services for such users, that it should
>>>> be a strategic goal to ensure this become so. This is without
>>>> prejudice to the question of who should operate the services.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have difficulty in parsing the above.
>>>
>>> Is there already a definition of what is "suitable", or is defining the
>>> "suitability" something that is part of SWG's role? If the latter, is
>>> there
>>> already an idea of what is "suitable" or is this copletely open?
>>
>> Completely open, including the definition of suitability. Both this
>> list item and switch2osm arise out of the (granted not universal in
>> the project) principle that we want end users to use our data instead
>> of other map data, among other reasons, because we see that as
>> demonstrating relevance in ways that will attract a bigger and more
>> useful community.
>>
>> So in accepting this into the SWG plan for the year, we are resolving
>> to consider this issue, with all possible outcomes open, including the
>> possibility that we will decide that nothing new needs to be done.
>>
>>> (Is SWG looking for an one-fits-all definition of "suitable" or is it
>>> possible that different tile services are "suitable" for different users?)
>>
>> Granted it hasn't been discussed yet, just accepted as a topic, but
>> I'll peep into my own crystal ball and suggest that not only different
>> tile servers will prove important, but also different data extraction
>> services, search engines, geocoders, routing engines, JavaScript
>> slippy map embedders, whatever. If other map services are providing
>> them and end users rely on them, we should be considering whether the
>> OSM world does, should or could offer them too.
>>
>>> Would that then mean that SWG would evaulate whether the services already
>>> listed on http://switch2osm.org/providers/ are "suitable", and if it is
>>> found they are not, endeavour to create "suitable" services?
>>
>> I'd be more cautious and go with "cause/encourage to be created". But
>> certainly, if a service doesn't exist and we come to the conclusion
>> that it ought to, that does identify a vacuum that it becomes our task
>> to see filled.
>>
>>> Does "it should be a strategic goal to ensure this *become* so" mean that
>>> an
>>> evaluation has already been made and the existing services have been found
>>> to be not "suitable"?
>>
>> No, no evaluation has been made, and this would need to feature in how
>> we address the issue. Informally, it does seem like an awful lot of
>> users are not finding an OSM solution to their problem in spaces where
>> it seems like they could be helped, though.
>>
>>> Is "the existing services are good enough and the market is going to do
>>> the
>>> rest" still a possible outcome of the analysis, or have SWG already
>>> decided
>>> that OSMF needs to either operate their own commercial tileserver or
>>> contract someone to do so?
>>
>> The former is still a possible outcome - albeit, probably with a lot
>> more provision of information to end-users, in the spirit of
>> switch2osm.
>>
>>
>> Dermot
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------
>> Igaühel on siin oma laul
>> ja ma oma ei leiagi üles
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Strategic mailing list
>> Strategic at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/strategic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Igaühel on siin oma laul
> ja ma oma ei leiagi üles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Strategic mailing list
> Strategic at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/strategic



More information about the Strategic mailing list