[Strategic] 2012

Fri Feb 3 11:44:55 GMT 2012

We haven't decided on a regular schedule again ... I'll be in the IRC room today at 4pm GMT.

After this week, I'm travelling for Feb and a good part of Mar ... so we'll need a Chair.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

>________________________________
> From: Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>
>To: Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com> 
>Cc: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>; "strategic at openstreetmap.org" <strategic at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: [Strategic] 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/attachments/20120203/b0fde314/attachment.html>