13:59:02 #startmeeting Activation Working Group April 13th 13:59:02 Meeting started Fri Apr 13 13:59:02 2018 UTC. The chair is russdeffner. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:59:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:59:29 ha, ok remembered how bot works... 13:59:41 Welcome everyone 13:59:58 Please type a hello if you're here for the AWG 14:00:12 Should we have a quick round of intros? 14:00:50 sure, might be just us again though :) 14:01:07 ok, let's start with hellos 14:01:49 looks like it's just the 2 of us 14:01:54 for now 14:02:02 ya, I assume this group will blow up next Activation, so good to just get some of the governance stuff taken care of 14:02:14 ok 14:02:27 #topic Revew Previous Meetings 14:02:43 #link https://trello.com/b/ogU4Wjd6/hot-activation-wg 14:02:54 Trell is there for any lurkers following along 14:03:00 *Trello 14:03:48 So, the big one is that the Board did conditionally approve our Terms of Reference 14:04:05 #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uf60-HUF9GyP68-DzzksEa8RLqFkUrsNSq6vhiiXa64/edit?usp=sharing 14:04:10 nice work russ 14:04:13 great 14:04:19 Link to ToR ^^ 14:04:31 hey Blake 14:04:42 hi Blake 14:05:22 The main comment from Pete, what do you think? 14:05:27 hi @p.ulbrich 14:06:50 I think priorities is good 14:06:58 I put my 2-cents in the comment 14:07:23 Do you think we should reword that part? 14:07:43 Make it more obvous priority vs. objective? 14:08:42 The other comment from Melanie I'll do real quick (i.e. copy links from materials into main doc) 14:08:44 #idea In alignment with HOT’s strategic objectives, the AWG's priorities are: 14:09:16 oh, I like that; how to vote...? 14:09:22 #vote yes 14:11:17 the main argument here for me is that objectives should be more measurable, priorities are for me more like guiding principles 14:11:51 I'm even going to do a 'future' thing and link to the gitbooks version of the curriculum :) 14:11:52 more tangible 14:12:07 ok 14:13:32 so are you thinking that last objective is a priority? 14:13:53 yes, I' thinking about that... 14:14:39 yes, would move it up 14:15:03 ok, I'll do those changes with the track change thing on so board sees what we did 14:15:46 how about this: Connecting with humanitarian stakeholders to address their needs 14:16:04 humanitarian stakeholders = subgroup of external partners? 14:16:31 sorry, this is a question 14:17:09 I think the bigger difference there is one is about reaching out to them, the other is about getting them to collaborate with other orgs around OSM 14:17:45 ok 14:18:31 we could maybe merge those two things though since they seem both to be more priority than objective 14:18:32 and this #idea re. objectives: Evaluate and process requests for mapping support before and during crisis events Onboard of new Activation Coordinators 14:19:14 to make it more operational 14:19:26 as objectives 14:20:50 Hello 14:21:16 Hi Christian, welcome to the AWG meeting 14:21:25 Hi Christian 14:21:37 Philipp, sorry you lost me a bit... 14:21:48 So, just those two should be objectives? 14:21:57 others go to priority? 14:21:58 sorry, just changed them a little 14:22:06 from 14:22:22 Evaluate requests for mapping support before and during crisis events 14:22:31 to Evaluate and process requests for mapping support before and during crisis events 14:22:34 oh, I see what you did there :) 14:22:35 and from 14:22:42 yes 14:22:56 ok, that looks good 14:24:28 great 14:24:43 still thinking about merging the two partner clauses 14:25:26 yes, maybe to priorities 14:25:29 Christian, if you're here for the AWG you can follow along on the Trello: https://trello.com/b/ogU4Wjd6/hot-activation-wg 14:25:59 We're just reviewing the previous meeting which includes going over the board feedback of the Terms of Reference 14:26:33 or maybe 14:26:50 #idea leaving them separate and 14:26:54 in objectives 14:27:20 #idea work with external partners during Activations 14:28:20 Hmm... 14:28:32 I think that's a good approach for objectives 14:28:47 but want to capture that collaboration piece in priority 14:28:48 or #idea ensure partners are included (or similar word) during activations 14:29:47 #idea Connect and collaborate with... 14:29:51 #idea collaborate with humanitarian stakeholders .... (in priorities) and 14:29:55 yes 14:30:39 #idea work with external partners... (in objectives) 14:31:30 or #idea promote collaboration with... in priorities 14:32:44 Not sure I like "work" but can't think of better word atm 14:34:08 Thank Phil, few minute for reading .... 14:34:27 #idea "liaise with" 14:34:40 I like that better 14:35:13 Maybe "collaborat with ...." 14:35:33 Ok, gosh, these always seem to be so difficult at the end 14:35:57 We can nick-pick from here, but think we've addressed the concerns 14:36:16 I would say not collaborate because that's what we use in the priority :) 14:36:37 agree - flows better if there's no repetition 14:37:06 Also seems more 'actionable' if you liaise vs. 'just' collaborate 14:37:29 :+1: 14:37:59 ok, great any last words on the ToR from anyone? 14:38:26 will they be need to be approved again by the HOT board at the next mtg? or will be the board just be informed of the changes? 14:39:11 I will let them know we made some changes, so hopefully it will be final approved at May meeting of HOT BoD 14:39:16 ok 14:39:55 This also makes good segway... 14:40:04 #topic Current Activations 14:40:26 So as Philipp well knows and other might, we have this 'lingering' Activation for Tonga 14:40:59 It has been waiting on imagery for the last bit of Eua island basically since it started 14:41:36 Unfortunately it was never a high profile/priority event and each step along the way has been pretty painfully slow 14:41:55 ..which also relates to the other topic - the question re. procedures for obtaining imagery 14:41:58 ya, lets get that done 14:41:58 Now we have an issue on our end 14:42:01 while we can 14:42:09 we need the imagery on oam right? 14:42:16 Yep, this is where the transition was good 14:42:33 because there is an obvious gap/need for imagery coordination at HOT 14:42:46 There is a 'working group' 14:42:50 well.... 14:43:03 half of what we need are the skills to work with raw imagery 14:43:06 we get the imagery 14:43:16 getting up on oam is the stumbling block sometimes 14:43:25 but that's not really going at the moment and I talked with Melanie about the 'sub-group' status, but that's another day... 14:43:29 case in point 14:43:38 however, I do have one question for this group... 14:44:07 Do we 'take' the coordinatino group as a sub-group of AWG, or should it be sub-group of Tech WG? 14:44:21 no sub groups 14:44:44 then IC group needs board adoption? 14:45:01 it is an informal organ 14:45:36 I kind of need a formal one :) 14:45:41 that responds 14:46:06 or a process for imagery requests 14:46:27 ya making it formal is not going to change much really :) 14:46:41 It would change my hopes :) 14:47:02 We made a lot of progress, the whole DG open data program 14:47:06 maybe process :slightly_smiling_face: 14:47:23 was kind of influenced by the imagery worging group 14:47:26 probably a lot 14:47:41 so i think progress is just slower than we would like 14:47:43 It just looks bad when I pester our imagery partners for weeks, then it's stuck at HOT IC group 14:47:48 but i get the frustration 14:48:01 and half of it woudl go away if we could easily work with imagery and get up on oam 14:48:09 but at the moment that is only nate for the most part 14:48:22 @smit1678 talking about you in the activation working group 14:49:05 it is either a workflow gap or a skills gap or something. DG to OAM should be the easiest of our imports to oam 14:49:08 Yes, part of the issue we have talked about for a long time, one or two people who have full time gigs are not a solution to IC 14:49:39 how difficult is it, i mean can someone with no prior related experience like me learn it relatively quickly? 14:49:51 I'm still waiting for any kind of response on the slack channel for multiple weeks 14:50:11 well the other issue is industry participaton. they have been super generous, but they have lots of demands as well on their time and resources. 14:50:13 if there are more people to ask.... 14:50:16 I would like to see that an outcome of the Imagery role course - i.e. trained to do OAM stuff 14:50:28 and now with planet's new disaster whatever 14:50:39 we need to be more involved and able to make use of that 14:50:51 and ChinaGeos friends we made 14:51:12 ya and imagery coordinator should be able to get dg to oam 14:52:01 Which, since we're getting to the top of hour, any last notes on Tonga response? 14:52:07 we just need to get the workflow down. lots of ways to provide imagery, the layers are not very standard. 14:52:21 so the oam import is always learning 14:52:42 #action Follow up with Nate & Cristiano about Imagery Coordination 14:53:09 #topic Activation Protocol and Curriculum 14:53:19 So, speaking of courses... 14:53:46 I shared around the course update estimate, link is on the trello card 14:54:00 and Blake and I have talked 'offline' as well 14:54:20 I think it is a good idea to just move forward with the copy/paste of the content to gitbooks 14:54:55 then it should be much easier to look at say the Imagery role and see what we can do to make that more useful 14:55:25 Philipp, any general thoughts on courses? 14:55:39 Have you looked at taking more? i.e. headed to Activation Lead role? 14:56:35 just had a look at the spreadsheet - could we finish that one up next time 14:56:45 yes, hoping to do so 14:57:36 Yes, the estimate was influenced by just wanting to make sure everyone knew what I thought it would take to replace the current training system 14:57:50 ok 14:58:04 Glad to chat about it more next time, but copy/paste of content is pretty minimal and should happen no matter what 14:58:19 let's take it as agreed? 14:58:51 Yes, will keep chatting with Blake about the details there, maybe can have it done by next time 14:59:07 sounds good 14:59:13 Ok, any closing arguments? :D 14:59:34 Thanks everyone! 14:59:44 Glad the AWG is moving again 14:59:45 i think that's it 14:59:53 #endmeeting