Re: [Talk-GB] UK government to spend £5 million rebuilding postcode data it sold off in 2013

[Tom Hughes]

On 18/03/16 09:59, Eric Grosso wrote:


For info, if you didn't see this news:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/data/budget-2016-government-spend-5-million-rebuilding-data-it-sold-off-in-2013-3636896/

It isn't written if it'll be in continuation of the Open Addresses UK
project (https://alpha.openaddressesuk.org/) or not, but for sure, the
£110 million figure comes from the report of this project
(http://theodi.org/case-studies/open-addresses-the-story-to-date),
figure itself derived from the one provided by the Danish government.


Actually it's worse than that. The actual announcement is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-documents/budget-2016#supporting-the-digital-economy

Which says "provide up to £5 million to develop options for an 
authoritative address register that is open and freely available" so in 
fact that 5 million is just to work out what they might do not to 
actually do it ;-)


Tom


--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Starting now: Next UK group call

[Rob Nickerson]

It's 8pm Thursday 17th and the UK group call is just starting.

To join dial 0800 22 90 900  and enter pass code 33224

*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [UK Chapter] Board of directors

[Chris Fleming]

Yes great notes. Unfortunately the calls are just when I doing "bedtime" so
I've not been able to make any.  In practical terms a variable size board
allows a bit a flexibility to size the board according to how many people
are available. I do think it's useful to have an even odd sized board. But
my feeling is also that 5 feels like a good size.

Setting a budget at the start of the year and getting it accepted by
membership does sound tempting. But personally I feel that we will vote for
the board and I would be happy for them to set budgets and spend as they
feel fit. Trying to set a budget in advance of the first year or two might
actaully prove to be very difficult?

Cheers
Chris



On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 at 07:39 Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Thank you for taking quality notes. I am lurking and reading your
> discussions.
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 at 23:55, Gregory  wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Discussion in the meeting tonight[1], included how many directors there
>> should be and how their power is managed.
>>
>> How many should there be?
>> The OSMF's AoA[2] clause 35 defines a range from 2-8 board directors by
>> the end of an election. Scenarios at an AGM are: the size doesn't change;
>> the board wants to increase but that requires at least 1 newly elected
>> (could be someone who stands against future board changes, could even be
>> someone who retires once elected); the board wants to decrease but this
>> requires someone choosing to step down (getting kicked out is controlled by
>>  different clauses?). So the board wouldn't be changing size on a whim. It
>> gives some ability to adjust on an annual basis the board size to reflect
>> the membership size (e.g. <10 members on the books and a board of 3 can
>> potentially keep the board in quorum/function) or to reflect the workload.
>>
>> I liked Rob's view of a smaller board implies more is done by members
>> (whether they be as committees or just as members). The board should be
>> focused on the admin of being a CIC/org. This still makes me think 5 is
>> good. A smaller board and it's easier to find acceptable meeting times or
>> have less replies to get in on a query.
>>
>>
>> What power should the board have?
>> When Jerry briefly described the France group proposing an annual budget
>> for acceptance by the membership, I really liked that. It has the side
>> effect of a clear budget having to be made each year. It seems reasonable
>> to combine this with spend over £1k has to be approved by the membership.
>> So if a hypothetical server renewal budget is £10k but in the year only £8k
>> was spent, the board could impulse order £2k of pretty lights for the
>> server before the end of the year. The pretty lights weren't authorised by
>> the membership but they were within the budget for the year, so all is
>> acceptable. The membership have the options to insist on more restrictive
>> budgets, not re-elect the board member(s) that were impulse buy, or just
>> blame the committee that pestered the board for pretty lights.
>>
>> What happens if a proposed budget is not accepted, and alterations
>> continue to be unaccepted by vote? I imagine this is rare, but does the
>> previous year's budget count as the default or does the organisation become
>> unable to spend more than £1k amounts until resolved?
>>
>>
>> [1] Notes of our meeting
>> https://hackpad.com/2016-03-17-OSM-GB-Meeting-UGWMWunxvTb
>> [2] OSMF's AoA
>> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#BOARD_OF_MANAGEMENT
>>
>>
>> From my sofa,
>> Gregory
>>
>> --
>> Gregory
>> o...@livingwithdragons.com
>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Current Draft of OSM-UK Articles of Association

[SK53]

Just a few notes to help identify areas of the draft AoA which need
discussion.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b4m314mq1y1fs5j/OSMUK%20AOA%20Notes.pdf?dl=0

Thanks to Rob, Andy, Robert & Brian for comments so far.

Cheers,

Jerry

On 15 March 2016 at 16:43, SK53  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> In order to provide everyone a chance to read the draft AoA before
> Thursday's conference call, here is a link to the *current version *on
> Google Docs:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbHiUcQjz0SHKlt6BzGp2z_Lo1YH1RmdEZ2kMkpNI04/edit?usp=sharing
> .
>
> The link should allow comments, so corrections to typos, paragraph
> numbering should be added directly on the document.
>
> I'll produce some guidance notes before the call as to the intention of
> specific parts of the AoA. However for now. Articles 2-6, 8, 9 , 23, 26,
> 27, 28 & 50 + the definitions are the parts worth checking over: much of
> the rest is fairly standard boilerplate.
>
> I'm still trying to get my head around providing alternatives for various
> membership scenarios (specifically allowing organisations as ordinary
> members or not), So please bear in mind that the first three articles under
> Members are subject to change.
>
> My earlier notes
> 
> are still relevant: and I may well not have covered everything I intended
> as working with the detailed text is very much "missing the wood for the
> trees". Also working things in from the model articles is rather
> reminiscent of creating spaghetti code.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Western Isles / Na h-Eileanan Siar

[SK53]

A couple of days I noticed an issue with coastline ways tagged with
admin_level=6 which were causing many islands in the Outer Hebrides to
appear as county level admin areas. Co-incidentally someone reported the
same errors on the forum.

I hope I have now removed all boundary=administrative and admin_level=6
from ways which are part of the Western Isles district. There are still
many other coastline ways along the west coast of Scotland which need
similar treatment.

However in looking at the Outer Hebrides it became apparent that much of
the data is rather poor. There are four different factors:


   - Many of the coastlines are uncorrected PGS data often with systematic
   errors of placement of 100s of metres.
   - In some cases shadows on high cliffs have led to erroneous coastlines
   (notably Soay which should now be corrected).
   - The Western Isles boundary largely does not follow the coastline. It
   appears to mainly result from import of Boundary Line Open Data and
   therefore uses the low water mark. This data is generally more accurate
   than coastline data so many islands fall outwith or across the admin
   boundary.
   - Many islands are not actually part of the boundary relation at all.

Unfortunately these issues are rather intimately interwoven and coastlines
& boundaries are likely to get broken during the process of improving the
data.

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [UK Chapter] Board of directors

[Jez Nicholson]

Thank you for taking quality notes. I am lurking and reading your
discussions.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 at 23:55, Gregory  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Discussion in the meeting tonight[1], included how many directors there
> should be and how their power is managed.
>
> How many should there be?
> The OSMF's AoA[2] clause 35 defines a range from 2-8 board directors by
> the end of an election. Scenarios at an AGM are: the size doesn't change;
> the board wants to increase but that requires at least 1 newly elected
> (could be someone who stands against future board changes, could even be
> someone who retires once elected); the board wants to decrease but this
> requires someone choosing to step down (getting kicked out is controlled by
>  different clauses?). So the board wouldn't be changing size on a whim. It
> gives some ability to adjust on an annual basis the board size to reflect
> the membership size (e.g. <10 members on the books and a board of 3 can
> potentially keep the board in quorum/function) or to reflect the workload.
>
> I liked Rob's view of a smaller board implies more is done by members
> (whether they be as committees or just as members). The board should be
> focused on the admin of being a CIC/org. This still makes me think 5 is
> good. A smaller board and it's easier to find acceptable meeting times or
> have less replies to get in on a query.
>
>
> What power should the board have?
> When Jerry briefly described the France group proposing an annual budget
> for acceptance by the membership, I really liked that. It has the side
> effect of a clear budget having to be made each year. It seems reasonable
> to combine this with spend over £1k has to be approved by the membership.
> So if a hypothetical server renewal budget is £10k but in the year only £8k
> was spent, the board could impulse order £2k of pretty lights for the
> server before the end of the year. The pretty lights weren't authorised by
> the membership but they were within the budget for the year, so all is
> acceptable. The membership have the options to insist on more restrictive
> budgets, not re-elect the board member(s) that were impulse buy, or just
> blame the committee that pestered the board for pretty lights.
>
> What happens if a proposed budget is not accepted, and alterations
> continue to be unaccepted by vote? I imagine this is rare, but does the
> previous year's budget count as the default or does the organisation become
> unable to spend more than £1k amounts until resolved?
>
>
> [1] Notes of our meeting
> https://hackpad.com/2016-03-17-OSM-GB-Meeting-UGWMWunxvTb
> [2] OSMF's AoA
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#BOARD_OF_MANAGEMENT
>
>
> From my sofa,
> Gregory
>
> --
> Gregory
> o...@livingwithdragons.com
> http://www.livingwithdragons.com
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb