Humanitarian OSM Team/Meetings/TrainingWG/24 August 2014

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

11:03 clairedelune: Hi, HOT Training Working Group meeting is starting
11:03 Jorieke: Hi all
11:03 clairedelune: Who is present for the meeting?
11:03 bgirardot: Hi all. I'm here.
11:03 clairedelune: Hello Jorieke!
11:04 clairedelune: Hi Blake!
11:04 russdeffner: Hello, I am here for the meeting
11:05 Tallguy: Hi, I'm here too
11:05 clairedelune: Great!
11:06 Jorieke: :-)
11:06 clairedelune: Our meeting minutes are here:
11:06 clairedelune: First item is updating our Terms of Reference.
11:07 clairedelune: Considering the fact that this group hasn't met for more than 2 years, I think it's a great time to refresh it a bit
11:08 clairedelune: Here, you can find the goals of the WG as written beginning 2012:
11:08 Jorieke: Great thanks
11:08 Tallguy: Thanks, the terms of reference actually look pretty good to me
11:08 clairedelune: What are your thoughts? What should be the aims of this Training WG (new version)?
11:09 bgirardot: The wiki links in the terms of reference is phenominal as well:
11:09 dan4dm_: hi all. I'd really like to understand if we're talking specifically about training for local groups, or also for remote mappers. please can someone state this, and ideally add it to the ToR?
11:10 Tallguy: I think it should include both, although the method of delivery will be different
11:10 clairedelune: We are talking about training for All (local and remote), we could specify it somewhere
11:11 clairedelune: Yes, thankyou bgirardot. Actually the potential training audiences had been described on that wiki page.
11:12 dan4dm_: in the document that Kate recently circulated (1yr HOT strategy) there's this bit about "Training programs
11:12 dan4dm_: ... more consistent (maybe a certificate)"
11:13 clairedelune: Exactly
11:13 dan4dm_: and I queried if that was about local or remote - kate's response was that it was for local mappers mainly, so it'd be handy to keep being clear
11:14 dan4dm_: (my motivation is that I don't want to see too much focus on formality in case that makes people think they shouldn't organise ad-hoc sessions)
11:15 bgirardot: I am sorry to be dense here, but when you say "local mappers" does that mean people on the ground locally in an area mapping?
11:16 dan4dm_: bgirardot: sorry for not being clear. for me, "local mappers" means people living in the area that needs mapping; vs "remote mappers" who often get involed in activations only via aerial mapping and may not know the area
11:17 clairedelune: I think so, but you might help me rephrase it. (in ToRs)
11:17 bgirardot: Aye. Thank you, I was sort of confusing it with "mapping party" just people togeather in person but that might be learning remote mapping.
11:17 bgirardot: I get it now
11:17 clairedelune: For me "local mappers" is people getting trained in the field...
11:18 Jorieke: I definitly thing we should focus on both of the groups, on the ground as well as remote mappers
11:18 clairedelune: yes, but should we think about providing certificate program to "non local" mappers?
11:19 Tallguy: & a transition, so the local mappers will feel they have 'ownership' of what may have been created remotely
11:20 dan4dm_: clairedelune: you mentioned the ToR and pointed to the hackpad. would it be a good idea for us to edit on that hackpad? or to just discuss here?
11:20 clairedelune: I think the purpose of the certification is to make sure people got some specific skills all right
11:20 clairedelune: dan4dm Let's all comment/edit the hackpad
11:20 bgirardot: I think knowing that a remote mapper has a good basic understanding of how to remote map "properly" would be of benefit.
11:21 Tallguy: @bgirardot I agree, we need to ensure they are given the knowledge so what is passed over to local mappers is of sufficient quality
11:22 Jorieke: yes, then the question is how we know if remote mappers have sufficient mapping skills
11:22 clairedelune: Tallguy, usually trainers are chosen based on this, as far as I know
11:23 clairedelune: Checking their edits?
11:23 Tallguy: one method of ensuring quality is the validation process
11:23 clairedelune: Yes
11:23 Jorieke: indeed
11:23 bgirardot: Who are trainers? I didn't know they exist.
11:24 clairedelune: bgirardot, I meant trainers in the field, not remote
11:24 clairedelune: And there are specific trainings for trainers
11:24 bgirardot: I am new in case it wasn't clear, but I come from an adult software training background and love to help people learn, sorry for all the questions.
11:24 bgirardot: Aye
11:24 russdeffner: bgirardot - typically we have at least a few projects a year that we actually hire and send folks to train locals
11:24 clairedelune: no worries, that's great
11:25 Iyan: should we develop the curriculum before the module?
11:25 dan4dm_: I disagree that remote mappers need a guaranteed level of competence - that's the opposite of the crowdsourced approach. I would never have got into HOT if I hadn't been able to contribute without confidence and receive help from others
11:25 bgirardot: Ya, I meant to say 'certification' should not be required
11:25 bgirardot: at all
11:25 dan4dm_: ok cool
11:26 Jorieke: i neither see certification as a good tool here 'in the west'
11:26 bgirardot: but more if people what it, adn then we know who we could rely on to answer questions or help someone who wanted help or a review of their work
11:26 russdeffner: I think the certificate will help ensure our trainers have the knowledge to train sufficiently
11:26 Jorieke: on the field for sure!
11:27 bgirardot: I see, and certificate is also being talked about just for trainers, not for average contributors, could be some confusion there.
11:27 russdeffner: i.e. it will help Kate hire folks
11:27 dan4dm_: Jorieke: yes, this is why I brought up the distinction - because apparently (I don't know) certification may be valued by people in local mapping situations
11:27 dan4dm_: Jorieke: oh you just said that
11:27 bgirardot: I was thinking just average contributors. and I like "badge" more than "certificate" for average contributors :)
11:28 clairedelune: Iyan, could you explain a bit more your idea?
11:29 Iyan: in the past years, we have developed curriculum for scenario development for contingency planning
11:29 Iyan: we're now thinking of make it more generic
11:29 Jorieke: Not a bad idea, maybe we can connect the
11:29 Iyan: into geospatial in disaster management
11:30 Jorieke: sorry, just go on
11:31 clairedelune: Iyan, could it be replicated to any country?
11:31 Iyan: I guess
11:32 clairedelune: Are there various "levels" (basic / advanced ...)?
11:34 Iyan: yes, we have basic and intermediate
11:34 Iyan: basic is more on how people contribute, intermediate is more on analysis (using qgis)
11:34 clairedelune: ok, thank you
11:34 Jorieke: Can we find more infor somewhere online?
11:35 clairedelune: Another idea (I don't know if pierzen|2 or AndrewBuck are around) was "In collaboration with Activation WG, providing documentation/training for new activators (activation coordinators)
11:36 clairedelune: Would you support this?
11:37 Jorieke: Good idea, we also need to have a support role I think, in collaboration with Activation WG, and for HOT mapathons
11:37 AndrewBuck: I just popped in b/c my name was mentioned but yes, training material for activators sounds like a good idea.
11:37 russdeffner: I think it would be good to have a 'module' for coordinating activations
11:37 Iyan: Jorieke: mostly still in word docs, i'll try to find the web accessible ones
11:37 dan4dm_: (side issue: I'm trying to understand what "Establish training modules" means in the ToR. it seems to be separate from documentation and from certification. does it mean syllabi?)
11:38 russdeffner: I think that was from the 'old' ToR, might not be applicable anymore?
11:38 russdeffner: ...may have been specific to LearnOSM
11:40 Jorieke: @Iyan top!
11:40 clairedelune: Do you think we should remove the term "module" for something more generic?
11:41 clairedelune: Or maybe we could define it for better understanding
11:42 clairedelune: (dan4dm: it doesn't mean syllabi.... )
11:42 russdeffner: I was thinking it could just be "training material" - especially if it won't all be used/going to LearnOSM
11:42 bgirardot: I agree, training material is more clear than module.
11:43 Iyan: here it is: it's a 58 pages though
11:44 dan4dm_: may I propose removing that "Establish..." bullet, and just using the existing "Create new documentation where gaps exist"? (Perhaps add "and training material")
11:45 bgirardot: Iyan, that is impressive
11:48 Jorieke: @Iyan Indeed! Will have a better look at it later on. Thanks a lot!
11:48 clairedelune: About training material needs: updating LearnOSM modules? updating translations? making sure content is the same in all languages? providing LearnOSM in a 10th language?
11:49 Iyan: it is not finished yet, we're in the process on developing a working group so that it can be use in broader disaster management phases
11:49 Iyan: no worries, happy to share
11:52 clairedelune: We are already 50 minutes into the meeting... do you think we need more time for reviewing/discussing ToRs?
11:53 clairedelune: Can we all go and check the hackpad?
11:53 Jorieke: just one more about the establishing bullet, it is for me neither that clear wath they meant exactly with it
11:54 dan4dm_: so Jorieke (and others), my suggested edit? ^
11:55 russdeffner: yes, I'm pretty sure that clause was specific to building LearnOSM and the breakdown of material into modules
11:56 Jorieke: Yep for me also okay :-)
11:57 bgirardot: Maybe there is still confusion on what module means? To me it means a whole package (Discrete training goal description, course outline, materials to use in training)
11:58 bgirardot: Like a "Basic OSM editing module" or something along those lines, is that about right?
11:58 * dan4dm_ makes edit
11:58 Jorieke: Modules is indeed a diffucult one
11:59 bgirardot: "Basic JOSM use module"
12:00 russdeffner: Yes, bgirardot - I think that was the intentional usage, but it seems module is not the best term
12:02 clairedelune: I understand "module" as a package too. I think there's no problem using it still in our ToRs, as long as we provide definition with it
12:02 dan4dm_: I concur :)
12:02 bgirardot: Aye
12:02 Iyan: agree
12:03 Tallguy: I agree
12:03 dan4dm_: (I think all those "wiki" links being added are an interface glitch. fine to remove)
12:06 Jorieke: And what do you think about the decide point?
12:08 dan4dm_: Jorieke: looks ok to me
12:08 clairedelune: I think training materials will stay on various platforms
12:08 clairedelune: but it needs to be more obvious for potential trainees, so they can find what they need
12:09 clairedelune: or do you think we should actually decide? choose?
12:09 dan4dm_: clairedelune: yes, but I think the current wording captures all that. no?
12:10 clairedelune: Jorieke, what do you think?
12:10 Jorieke: it's okay for me like this, but I don't really seet his as a real task :-) But cand definitly stay in
12:13 Iyan: I think it would be good if its stay on various platform but we need a hub (a portal or maybe simply a page) to redirect people to the information that is appropriate to their needs
12:13 clairedelune: yes, good idea Iyan, should we add it as a task?
12:14 Tallguy: I thought it was already in 'promote new training materials and modules for all users'
12:16 dan4dm_: I guess "consolidate" also covers it implicitly. Hmm Iyan is HOT wiki page sufficient, or not?
12:17 clairedelune: How do you feel about this new version of ToRs? Do you want more time or another meeting to review it? Or could if be proposed to the Board for approval?
12:18 Jorieke: Better would be HOT wiki and website.
12:18 Iyan: Claire: I think so, probably part of Consolidate?
12:18 Jorieke: ToR now are not bad in my viiew
12:19 dan4dm_: no objections from me
12:20 clairedelune: russdeffner bgirardot Tallguy do you have objections?
12:20 Iyan: dan4dm: we're thinking the same. Not that wiki page is insufficient, its just some people more familiar to read a single docs/guidelines than wiki page
12:20 russdeffner: no, think it is ok to propose
12:20 Tallguy: I agree, they look good
12:21 clairedelune: great!
12:21 clairedelune: Seconf point on the agenda was: describing some of your topics/activities of interest to be developped within this WG
12:22 clairedelune: Third point is: How often should we meet? and when would be next meeting? (should we keep Sunday same time as today?)
12:22 Tallguy: I would like to see a step by step guide for remote mappers, and have started drafting something on the wiki
12:23 clairedelune: I had hope to keep our meeting under 90 minutes if possible.
12:23 russdeffner: I have to leave in a few minutes, but for the most part Sunday mornings (for me) are ok
12:23 Tallguy: OK - leave my point until another meeting.
12:23 bgirardot: Time is ok with me too
12:24 Jorieke: for me too
12:24 russdeffner: Tallguy - keep in mind that if you create something on the wiki, it cannot become part of LearnOSM
12:24 bgirardot: And I am sort of of the same interest as Tallguy
12:24 russdeffner: due to license differences
12:24 dan4dm_: I'm fine with time etc - I may be flaky, whatever the timeslot :/
12:25 Tallguy: russdeffner - perhaps as meeting out of time you can advise me of a route to get something in there?
12:25 clairedelune: Thank you russdeffner
12:25 Jorieke: Maybe we should have a kind of agenda where everyone can put there points to discuss on?
12:26 clairedelune: Sure!
12:26 clairedelune: Would you want to create it Jorieke?
12:26 Tallguy: sounds like a good idea - needed the TOR's first though
12:26 russdeffner: Tallguy - well hopefully this group will be the route to do so...
12:26 Jorieke: I'm not specialist in these sort of things, but can do it :-) is hackpad okay?
12:27 clairedelune: It can be a good starting point
12:27 dan4dm_: well, one "interest" is that, as Tallguy knows, I've been advocating use of iD for newcomers, and choice of josm/iD affect training materials. let's not open up that issue now but I thought I'd mention it, in case TrainingWG wants to come to it later
12:28 clairedelune: Great dan4dm
12:28 Jorieke: I will put it on the list ;-)
12:28 clairedelune: Tallguy, I've already seen a kind of step by step guide for remote mappers (published in French by CartONG)
12:29 clairedelune: do you need a link?
12:29 Tallguy: clairedelune, yes please - my french not too good though, but I'll try
12:30 Jorieke: So when is next meeting? Are we doing once a month?
12:30 clairedelune: Tallguy:
12:31 Tallguy: merci
12:31 clairedelune: ;-)
12:31 russdeffner: ok, thanks everyone for getting this WG running again, 'see' you all soon; have a great day!
12:31 bgirardot: Cheers
12:31 clairedelune: As Jorieke is reminding us... when are we meeting again?
12:31 clairedelune: in 2 weeks? a month?
12:32 bgirardot: I like 2 weeks
12:32 clairedelune: Anyone else?
12:32 russdeffner: 2 weeks sounds good, have to run
12:32 Jorieke: bye Russel!
12:32 Tallguy: I'm good for 2 weeks
12:32 Jorieke: yep two weeks is good to me :-)
12:32 clairedelune: To keep meetings short and running I like 2 weeks too, at least at the beginning
12:33 clairedelune: then once everything is on tracks, we'll see maybe to change frequence
12:33 bgirardot: Perfect
12:33 clairedelune: Great!
12:33 clairedelune: Thank you very much to all of you!
12:33 dan4dm_: thanks clairedelune and all!
12:34 clairedelune: I think we can close the meeting now, if there's no objection
12:34 Jorieke: yes thanks to all and see you next :-)
12:34 clairedelune: Have a nice evening/day/night/week!
12:34 * dan4dm_ goes away - bye
12:34 bgirardot: Good day all