On Wednesday 22 August 2018, joost schouppe wrote: > > It was the reactions here > https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/229 that made me > think more people considered themselves part of the local-chapters > group, or seemed to know more about what the LCWG should, could or > could not do. But since no one has come forward to dispute your > previous mail, I think we can consider it done: the LCWG is now also > the "community working group".
Since OpenStreetMap traditionally attracts a lot of people who do not consider themselves to belong to any kind of organized community i would suggest to not engross these by implying your effort includes or speaks for the whole OSM community or that community in OSM always means some kind of centralized organization. Not drawing a line between officially registered local chapters and more informal organizations makes a lot of sense but it is still about organized activities which only covers parts of the OSM community. I would also like to point out that one important reason for local chapters and informal local organizations working together is to create a counterweight and corrective to the centralized OSMF and its working groups. Forming a working group does not necessarily preclude this but the mentioned function is something that ultimately requires cooperation also outside the constraints of a working group. > During the talks leading up to this, a lot of ideas and priorities > came up. I have a decent overview of those. I propose that I create > an issue for every one of those at > https://github.com/osmfoundation/lcwg . Frankly i am fairly strongly against using github for general discussion on topics that should be open for the whole community. I think it would be best to keep general discussion on ideas and cooperations on the mailing list (or on a forum channel if that is preferred) and use the wiki for documentation needs and only use external platforms when there are substantial needs for that (although i would - as said before - prefer it if we work towards having a project management and issue tracking platform within OSM for this kind of thing). I would very much welcome people starting discussing specific ideas and problems here because i have currently rather limited knowledge what other local chapters would like to pursue in cooperation. Some points were brought up in Milano, in particular recruitment of people to participate in local chapter work and the desire to exchange ideas about methods to support this. > [...] I would suggest we schedule a time that we're all at the > Matrix/Riot/IRC/Telegram channel, but in my experience voice meetings > seem to be more productive (though a bit more complicated to get > involved in). Similar argument here - i would try to avoid proprietary commercial platforms (and for an official OSMF WG this would also be demanded by the FOSS policy). In general real time synchronous conversation (both text and voice) disadvantages people with limited English abilities so doing as much as possible in asynchroneous conversation is advisable in multilingual groups. For synchroneous meetings Mumble has the advantage of allowing both voice and text communication and it is already used by the OSMF (board and some WGs). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Local-chapters mailing list Local-chapters@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
