Ideas for OGC Leadership Meeting 2013-08-08

Connection info

This is usually sent to the mailing list, see the mailing list archive.

Agenda

Proposed agenda Items:
  • (Adrian) (10min) Consider what to do about Topics 7 and 8: either make them into full topics or drop them.
  • (Adrian) (5min) Consider expanding Topic 2 into the broader TopicSelfAssessment
  • (Adrian) (5min) The proposed Recommendations Table discussed in the last teleconf is too restrictive so consider a change.

Trevor's email agenda:
  1. Agenda
    1. Recommendations Wiki
    2. Leadership Topic Groups
      1. Composition
      2. Kick-offs
      3. Schedule
    3. Validation Poll
      1. Purpose
      2. Schedule
    4. Other Business

2. Links

Attendance

  • Trevor Taylor
  • Adrian Custer
  • Cameron Shorter
  • Carl Reed
  • David Danko
  • Edric Keighan
  • Frank Suykens
  • Geoff ?Zeiss?
  • George Percivall
  • Greg Buehler
  • Luis Bermudez
  • Mark Reichardt
  • Stan Tillman
  • Phone callers:

Minutes

Trevor started the meeting

Mark gave a welcome, said we need to schedule things

Geoff said lots of work is being done.

Trevor talked about the Agenda.

Trevor showed the 'private' wiki.
  • He showed how to edit the 'Recommendations Table'
  • He showed TopicOAB with some field populated with some text from someone.
  • There are links to the Public wiki.
  • To make a discussion page for each Recommendation, we can use a wikiWord for the Recommendation, then 'Create a Topic' with that word and the RecommendationDiscussionTemplate
  • Adrian asked what 'For OGC Members Only' meant; there can be a choice between 'OGC Members' and 'Public'; it is currently open to all 'OGC Members'
  • Tevor asked if we are comfortable with the technological setup of the wiki
    • Edric asked if there is a way to aggregate Recommendations; Trevor said they will want to, not sure how to do it (technically) yet. Cameron said we should try to consolidate as much as possible; should pick a major topic to aggregate the others and strikeout earlier, separate topics.
    • There was no vocal opposition

Trevor moved on to organizing the subgroups
  • Trevor indicated that work on TopicUpdateVision and TopicExternalSubmission had kicked off
  • There is some page on the 'private' wiki with a full table.The table was sort by 'average priority'.
  • Trevor asked if Mark thought it would be a good time to converge Topics. Mark suggested priorities lower than '2.4' should be left aside and focus be on higher priority items.
  • Trevor asked for comments.
    • Sam suggested he had no argument but will be working on CITE regardless of the work of others. Mark said that makes sense.
    • Dave suggested some issues should be dealt with in a wider group or with the TC not with this group. They are of a different nature, more specific.
    • Cameron suggested the 'priority' is useful to see where others are focusing, but will be focusion on the things he wants, not some high priority subset.
    • Trevor heard this to mean we should focus on 'high priority' items. David Danko asked how does that reflect what Sam and Cameron was saying. Trevor said anyone is welcome to work on any item at any time.
    • Mark suggested we have no choice but to prioritize in order to highlight issues going into the Frascati meeting.
    • Trevor once again suggested starting with high priority

(from the meeting chat) Chris Ekins, (Australia Defence) sends his apologies.

Trevor asked for people to identify themselves as volunteer leaders for a particular Topic
  • David Danko volunteered for TopicSimplifyVoting
  • Sam Bacharach volunteered to lead CITE related topics
  • Stan asked why we were working on 3.0 level topics, Trevor suggested anyone could work on anything, Greg was assigned on a low priority topics.
  • David Danko said he doesn't have to work on his topic, and would be willing to work on a higher priority if the group wants.
  • Stan said he can't keep up and would like the group to focus on a sub-set.
  • There was aggreeement that all topics would be worth addressing, priority is just a way to focus work.
  • Mark suggested Topic 24, 31, 32 which all talk about Meeting process, could be collapsed into one. Mark also suggested (again) that tackling the high priority issues will show problems with
  • Edric agreed that topics that can be put together should be. But he suggested that we might be overwhelmed when we started work. He suggested early integration of Topics might be easier.
    • Mark suggested we work a litte
    • Adrian suggested that smaller atomic topics end up being easier to work in.
    • David Danko disagreed because he does not know which Topic to work in. David suggested that once we work in smaller groups it may get easier.
    • Mark is suggested that we are merely setting up some logic for coalescing topics.
    • Edric suggested that a larger list might indeed help focus.
    • Frank suggested the work groups can look at other topics and assess which could be integrated into theirs.
  • David suggest we start work.
  • Carl said he had actually combined two SWG topics by asking the members interested in both to work together.

Trevor switched to talking about the overall schedule but conversation returned to the previous item (integrated with notes above).
  • A point of contatct (staff) was assigned to each topic
  • Trevor suggested that staff be the one to kick off work on each thing.
  • Stan does not see a staff contact on TopicQualityVsQuantity. Greg said there was another. Mark said it was an oversight and would be dealt with.
  • A small question started on the TopicQualityVsQuantity. There was a suggestion to integrate the new CITE testing topic, Adrian thought it was originally about the documents not the implementations. Cameron said it should be about all activities and would eventually break down into five or so
  • Trevor asked whether a document draft could be produced by the 15th. Adrian thought one week was impossible. Edric proposed to extend the date.
    • Tevor asked when the three week rule kicked in. The 5th of september is three weeks before the closing pleneary. This would be for the completed document
    • Carl suggested that some topics can definately get done by the Frascati meeting. He suggested phasing our work.
    • Mark said that was the intent. That we were just kicking off discussion.
    • Adrian suggested then the three week rule does not matter.
    • Cameron suggested that if we are shooting for a straw man that we can present, then the spreadsheet and priorities would be a good way to kick off discussion. Also, we should shoot for a lightweight presentation not a complete one because that would kick off discussion.
    • Mark likes that we are focusing on specific recommendations even if they overlap in different themes.
    • Frank asked is there going to be a public session on 'Ideas for OGC'
    • Carl said there would be lots of discussion in different groups. Mark gave an example of cross-cutting issues.
    • Mark suggested that we switch to working on the topics
    • Trevor suggested he would move the August 15th milestone to late in the month
    • Adrian wondered about Cameron's suggestion and suggested that we present a 'snapshot' of where we are rather than some completed work. Cameron and Mark agreed.

Trevor talked about a 'Validation Poll' which would get feedback from the general Membership on the work of the 'Ideas 4 OGC' process.
  • Trevor asked if this is moot because of the conclusion that we are presenting 'work in progress' not completed work.
  • Frank suggested this is good for final recommendations and therefore useful later in process.
  • Cameron suggested we could ask the membership for opinon on the recommendations we have proposed, would be useful to prioritize future meetings. Adrian thought this could be a process started at the TC meeting. Trevor suggested we need to contact everyone in the Membership not just TC attendees. Cameron suggested that it be useful to try to do before the meeting, it would allow the discussion to focus around community input. Trevor also suggested there were some Net Meetings as part of the process so that could be used to try to do things before the meeting.
  • Mark suggested the wiki could be used since it is open to everyone (i.e. all OGC Members)
  • Adrian asked how this voting would actually work. Greg suggested a 1-5 ranking button could be added. Carl wants to keep it simple.

Trevor moved on to other buisness:
  • The transcripts service is moving slowly but will be available and posted as they are available on the Leadership (public) wiki.
  • Adrian wanted to clarify what is happening on Topics 7 and 8. Mark will tackle clarifying these.
  • Adrian wanted to substitue TopicSelfAssessment for TopicPerformanceMetric. Mark was fine with the substitution did not like the focus on 'AnnualReport'. Adrian said he could rename the topic in the public wiki, and fix the table; Greg suggested he could handle the 'private' wiki.
  • David asked about how the two wiki will be kept in sync
  • Adrian talked about his experience working on TopicOAB and issues working with tables. Perhaps the new system does not run into the issues Adrian had.
  • Where do we go from here?
    • Trevor suggested the staff contact point for each topic should organize the working group and first discussions can begin.
  • Adrian asked about the nature of Policies and Proceedures in the way we construct our discussions.

Trevor closed the meeting.

Topic revision: r6 - 21 Aug 2013, ChrisLittle
 

This site is powered by FoswikiThe information you supply is used for OGC purposes only. We will never pass your contact details to any third party without your prior consent.
If you enter content here you are agreeing to the OGC privacy policy.

Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding OGC Public Wiki? Send feedback