Humanitarian OSM Team/Working groups/Activation/meeting 2015-06-02

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Activation WG Meeting Tuesday, June 2, 2015 - 14:00 UTC

Participants (IRC handle)

  • BlakeGirardot (118)
  • russdeffner (95)
  • pierzen (55)
  • cristiano (35)
  • danbjoseph (15)
  • mkl (34)
  • Tyler_Radford (21)
  • xth_ (2)
  • johnwhelan (4)
  • robert_banick (20)

Links mentioned in meeting

Meeting Summary

  • Review/Approve Previous Meeting's minutes - no objections/approved
  • Question regarding how to join AWG mailing list
    • Currently need to be added by Administrator - Blake is one of them
  • Nepal brief
    • Result of 5 weeks - more than 6000 contributors
    • Pre-disaster: TM#1018 still not complete; difficulty with new contributors not using multiple imagery sources, we don't know which areas have no high-res imagery
    • More than 1 Million buildings added
    • More than 50,000 KM of roads added - many roads/paths unconnected in mountains
    • Post-disaster: progressing slowly - have to determine with KLL if we should continue
    • Validation: quality of mapping to revise with this level of new contributors; buildings, roads; landslides - inventory what is being done by other organizations
    • Discussion on next steps to get task #1018 complete
      • Suggestion for a better validation strategy
      • Suggestion for an 'intermediate' after action review (i.e. move to Phase III of draft protocol)
    • Action Items:
      • Blake to 'spearhead' validation/clean-up efforts
      • Tyler to follow-up with Nama and KLL for longer-term next steps
  • Finalize Draft Activation Protocol
    • Terminology suggestion to use "Protocol" versus process/procedures as this will (hopefully) become adopted policy of HOT
    • Adoption process similar to Membership Code and Bylaws Amendments (wg drafts, Board reviews, if necessary votes by Board and/or Voting Members)
    • Because of the 'difficulty'/time and effort to adopt and change in the future, the Protocol should/needs to be somewhat broad - i.e. not rely on specific tools/partners/etc.
    • Recent Changes to Protocol Draft:
      • Addition of Activator Roles
      • Some other edits from early Activator Curriculum development
    • Action Item: Review Protocol Draft by next meeting
  • Tasking Manager improvements - An update
    • Question about how best to be informed/involved - probably best way is via github
    • Initially Blake and Rekth (Outreachy Intern) are collecting and organizing feedback
    • Suggestion for Tech WG that all technical projects should think about 'pre-planning' reports, etc. that could be used for funding/grant apps/etc.
  • Activation Curriculum - updates
    • Progress continues - core review team has been great with guiding concepts to deliverables
    • Some funds from curriculum project used for activators to go to sotm-us, provide feedback to Russ while there
    • 'Initial Feedback Period' will then be over and work will transition to building content/scripts for what looks like around 12 training modules.
  • Discussion around tentative schedule for Nepal after action
    • suggestion to create 'ad-hoc' group for tagging
    • suggestion to create similar group for imagery, but list/wg already exist


Jun 02 16:00:56 BlakeGirardot: Greetings
Jun 02 16:02:00 russdeffner: hello we are starting AWG meeting
Jun 02 16:02:31 russdeffner: Blake can you link agenda here for everyone?
Jun 02 16:02:35 russdeffner: please :)
Jun 02 16:02:57 pierzen: Hi all
Jun 02 16:03:01 BlakeGirardot:
Jun 02 16:03:40 BlakeGirardot: Hi pierzen
Jun 02 16:03:57 BlakeGirardot: The first item on the agenda is review and approval of the last meetings minutes
Jun 02 16:03:59 cristiano: Good morning everyone
Jun 02 16:04:01 BlakeGirardot: which are here:
Jun 02 16:04:06 BlakeGirardot: Hi cristiano
Jun 02 16:04:24 Tyler_Radford: Hello all
Jun 02 16:04:32 BlakeGirardot: I'll give everyone a few moments to review those, including myself
Jun 02 16:06:48 russdeffner: They look good to me (since I did the summary) - so please let me know if I did not capture something very well (or at all - it's easy to overlook something in an IRC summary)
Jun 02 16:07:42 BlakeGirardot: We are reviewing the minutes from last meeting
Jun 02 16:07:46 BlakeGirardot: which are here:
Jun 02 16:07:53 BlakeGirardot: Agenda for today is at
Jun 02 16:07:58 BlakeGirardot:
Jun 02 16:09:42 danbjoseph: the activation mailing list, how does one get on that?
Jun 02 16:09:50 BlakeGirardot: So if no one has any objections, corrections or additions, we will just accept them as presented.
Jun 02 16:09:59 BlakeGirardot: I can add you danbjoseph
Jun 02 16:10:05 danbjoseph: re: "No follow-up/volunteer from the call for imagery coordination help on Activation mailing list last week."
Jun 02 16:10:45 danbjoseph: that'd be great blakegirardot
Jun 02 16:10:45 russdeffner: maybe see if you can 'self-join' here:!forum/activation
Jun 02 16:11:11 danbjoseph: "You cannot view this group's content because you are not currently a member."
Jun 02 16:11:12 russdeffner: I'm actually trying to figure out which groups allow anyone to join/must be added/etc
Jun 02 16:11:22 russdeffner: ah, ok - good to know
Jun 02 16:11:38 mkl-web: they are mostly set up to be managed by the lsit moderator
Jun 02 16:12:03 russdeffner: yes, I think some like community wg though, maybe should just be 'open'
Jun 02 16:12:09 BlakeGirardot: So no objections to last meetings minutes?
Jun 02 16:12:46 russdeffner: anyway, thanks for trying Dan - Blake will add you - I'll try to make note on each group's page 'how to join'
Jun 02 16:12:53 Tyler_Radford: BlakeGirardot I reviewed, thanks (although I couldn't attend last time)
Jun 02 16:13:11 danbjoseph: minutes look good, can you fwd to me "the call for imagery coordination help on Activation mailing list last week."
Jun 02 16:13:29 BlakeGirardot: Sure danbjoseph
Jun 02 16:13:32 mkl-web: it shoudl really represent an intention to significantly "work" in the "working" group :)
Jun 02 16:13:34 cristiano: I think only activation@ and imagery-coord@ require manuall add
Jun 02 16:13:41 BlakeGirardot: I'll get all that after the meeting if thats cool.
Jun 02 16:14:14 BlakeGirardot: Then lets move on to item 2, the Nepal activation. The agenda item is past, present, future, but I will leave it up pierzen what he would like to brief on.
Jun 02 16:14:25 pierzen: ok
Jun 02 16:14:28 russdeffner: @mkl - yes
Jun 02 16:14:31 BlakeGirardot: pierzen: Can you catch us up and maybe lets talk about what we need to do next?
Jun 02 16:14:41 pierzen: Result of 5 weeks mapping from more then 6,000 contributors :
Jun 02 16:14:41 pierzen: Pre-Disaster
Jun 02 16:14:41 pierzen: - TM#1018 Still not completed. Difficulty it seems for some contributor to check both Bing + MapBox imagery. We dont know which areas where no highres imagery
Jun 02 16:14:41 pierzen: - More then 1 million buildings added
Jun 02 16:14:41 pierzen: - More the 50,000 km of roads added - Many roads or paths not connected in the mountains
Jun 02 16:14:42 pierzen: Pos-Disaster
Jun 02 16:14:42 pierzen: - Progressing slowly - have to determine with KLL if we should continue
Jun 02 16:14:44 pierzen: Validation - Qualiy of mapping to revise, Crowdsourcing with this level of new contributors
Jun 02 16:14:44 pierzen: - buildings, roads
Jun 02 16:15:39 pierzen: - Landslides - inventory of what is done by other organizations
Jun 02 16:16:20 pierzen: That's basically what I have to say for this week
Jun 02 16:16:24 cristiano: Thanks @pierzen - can you expand on "We dont know which areas where no highres imagery"?
Jun 02 16:16:53 cristiano: I would like to help to make sure we fill all the gaps, especially for base mapping tasks
Jun 02 16:17:04 cristiano: (if we haven't yet)
Jun 02 16:17:32 pierzen: On TM#1018, binganlyzer shows some zones where no imagery. We would need to analyze more closely to know exactly
Jun 02 16:18:09 pierzen: It is mostly in the areas not yet completed with tm1018
Jun 02 16:18:16 BlakeGirardot: I'd like to make a push to get 1018 done and then figure out a way to have some experienced mappers go over it to harmonize the road tagging and fix up the base map.
Jun 02 16:18:31 johnwhelan: would it be useful to comment on the tiles that have no high res in Bing and only the monochrome in mapbox, that is only zoomable to 60 meters in JOSM rather than 20 which is usually used to map buildings?
Jun 02 16:19:00 mkl: a good structure for organizing validation seems like a real need
Jun 02 16:19:30 pierzen: Validation - Various aspects
Jun 02 16:19:37 pierzen: - Imagery missing
Jun 02 16:19:44 pierzen: - Contributors errors
Jun 02 16:19:54 robert_banick: @mkl @pierzen hear hear! put that one on the chalkboard
Jun 02 16:19:57 mkl: as well as a more consistent, tracking of status on the activation as a whole. even the skype rooms have gone quiet
Jun 02 16:19:57 pierzen: - Inexperienced contributors validating
Jun 02 16:20:16 BlakeGirardot: I was thinking making a new project, same area, huge tiles, invite only and invite experienced mappers to give it a good going over.
Jun 02 16:20:18 cristiano: Severin did a task in which we analyzed Bing coverage, maybe we can use that to start? and compare with extent from all base mapping tasks?
Jun 02 16:20:48 pierzen: Yes badly after 5 weeks, even the International community do not exchange much.
Jun 02 16:21:06 xth_: I can also imagine that some try to validate something especially in tasks where most is already mapped but not yet validated
Jun 02 16:21:07 mkl: for contributor errors, we'd need to explicitly define a thorough workflow
Jun 02 16:21:16 mkl: does it mean using JOSM validation, for example?
Jun 02 16:21:36 mkl: it feels like we've really moved into a new phase
Jun 02 16:22:05 mkl: consolidating the immediate emergency response, improving what's there, and starting to plan for the long term / recovery
Jun 02 16:22:09 xth_: so perhaps a simple instruction to finish mapping and leave the validation to experienced users might be enough
Jun 02 16:22:24 mkl: perhaps a more thorough and deliberate after action soon?
Jun 02 16:22:30 pierzen: Important for us to assure firs quality of Basemap
Jun 02 16:22:45 * BlakeGirardot nods agreeably at pierzen Jun 02 16:23:23 russdeffner: sorry, had to take a call - jumping back: Validation is going to be part of curriculum
Jun 02 16:23:33 pierzen: Would a crowdsource tool let rapidly check all buildings, we simply click on arrow to next if ok
Jun 02 16:23:49 BlakeGirardot: That is why I think a new project, same area as 1018, invite only and communicate the importance of making the road network solid to the invited mappers.
Jun 02 16:24:14 pierzen: Or as mkl suggested through JOSM. Would Todo let do this?
Jun 02 16:24:33 BlakeGirardot: I would put the road network higher priority than buildings.
Jun 02 16:24:44 pierzen: Yes
Jun 02 16:24:49 johnwhelan: One suggestion on Validation is if we knew the mapper has a good history of work then a background task each night would automatically mark their tiles as validated.
Jun 02 16:24:55 russdeffner: so I'll be looking to work with TM leads to link-up with the 'Validation Lead' training
Jun 02 16:25:44 danbjoseph: it took a long time in the philippines to start to cleanup errors/inconsistencies/damage-tags from the haiyan activation, it's good that this is being addressed now
Jun 02 16:25:57 BlakeGirardot: It would be interesting to see who and how many we get if we put a call out on the email list: "We need experineced mappers who can dedicate some time over the next 10 days to an important project"
Jun 02 16:26:15 russdeffner: i.e. In my 'mind's eye' I see a training/vetting = permission to validate
Jun 02 16:26:27 russdeffner: details to be worked out
Jun 02 16:26:33 cristiano: Why only 1018? Let's cover the entire area we did base mapping, no? Here's a good overview: (make sure to turn on the basemap tasks layers)
Jun 02 16:26:38 pierzen: BlakeGirardot: Yes but first have a workflow to propose to the validators
Jun 02 16:27:05 pierzen: russdeffner: we first look at immediate solution for the response
Jun 02 16:27:11 BlakeGirardot: I thought 1018 covered most of the area and it had a lot of new mappers on it so likely needs the most attention, but yes, my intention is to cover whatever areas we mapped.
Jun 02 16:27:31 russdeffner: yes pierzen - my commentary is more long-term, tansition to next agenda item :)
Jun 02 16:27:34 pierzen: 1018 is flooded by other tasks. no visibility
Jun 02 16:27:48 pierzen: russdeffner: yes, on long term, we need to revise this
Jun 02 16:28:26 pierzen: 1018 we dont have a priority more urgent then urgent :)
Jun 02 16:28:30 russdeffner: I will wait patiently though, please continue with item 2
Jun 02 16:28:32 BlakeGirardot: pierzen: I was envisioning asking them to focus on roads, make the tagging uniform according to Nepal road wiki, remove tiny pieces, connect up larger segments.
Jun 02 16:28:33 danbjoseph: maybe another issue for the TM: ability for task managers to create a list of approved validators for a task
Jun 02 16:28:46 cristiano: @pierzen: turn off the other types of tasks (heli and IDP camps)
Jun 02 16:29:05 johnwhelan: at the moment validation doesn't done because of a number of reasons. One is fixing up lots of newbies work sometimes takes longer than if you'd done it right the first time.
Jun 02 16:29:13 pierzen: cristiano: yes, but we should ask first to KLL
Jun 02 16:29:17 BlakeGirardot: danbjoseph: You have any desire to put that in as an issue on the TM please? if not I will later
Jun 02 16:29:44 russdeffner: danbjoseph and johnwhelan - I think these are issues better for another agenda item (modified after seeing Blakes' response) :)
Jun 02 16:30:10 BlakeGirardot: its a good idea that needs to not get lost
Jun 02 16:30:54 BlakeGirardot: pierzen: What do you think our next step or two should be regarding Nepal?
Jun 02 16:31:10 danbjoseph: blakegirardot i'm looking at existing issues and seeing if it already exists in some form
Jun 02 16:31:22 BlakeGirardot: danbjoseph: I don't think I have heard or seen it before.
Jun 02 16:31:41 BlakeGirardot: but thank you for checking first :)
Jun 02 16:31:52 pierzen: We need to make the point with KLL. We can support them to analyze post-disaster studies. But we should focus on Basemap, assure the quality.
Jun 02 16:32:08 BlakeGirardot: Ok, so KLL catch up session
Jun 02 16:32:16 pierzen: yes
Jun 02 16:32:31 BlakeGirardot: and what do you think is first step to QA the existing Nepal basemap?
Jun 02 16:32:56 robert_banick: speaking from experience in disaster contexts, the "quiet" we're seeing on Skype channels is because most of the action is now happening on the ground in cluster meetings or with government
Jun 02 16:33:15 BlakeGirardot: robert_banick: Very interesting.
Jun 02 16:33:25 robert_banick: everyone who's doing something is already there
Jun 02 16:33:30 robert_banick: and the "crowd" has largely moved on
Jun 02 16:33:57 robert_banick: If we want to align our recovery work with what's happening on the ground we should work through those who can communicate priorities coming out of those meetings
Jun 02 16:34:11 danbjoseph: (an aside blakegirardot
Jun 02 16:34:13 robert_banick: so KLL for sure. I would also look at some of the DHN leadership at the UN
Jun 02 16:34:38 pierzen: robert_banick: what do you think is our next step for crowdsourcing? For priorities, KLL should be on the Cluster meetings.I suggested they should assist
Jun 02 16:34:48 robert_banick: Maybe if we raised our interest in supporting the recovery Andrej Verity at the UN could work out some lines of communication or at least reporting from the major cluster meetings? Just a thought.
Jun 02 16:36:23 russdeffner: can I suggest we are coming to end of agenda item 2
Jun 02 16:36:37 mkl: (anyone keeping a log? my net coming and going)
Jun 02 16:36:39 Tyler_Radford: robert_banick I agree, in additional to cleaning up the work that has been done, we need to ensure what we do going forward aligns with recovery needs from the ground
Jun 02 16:36:54 mkl: Tyler_Radford +1
Jun 02 16:37:00 russdeffner: there is auto-log mkl - we'll get everything into the wiki after
Jun 02 16:37:09 Tyler_Radford: I have a meeting with Nama in the morning on a bunch of topics and can bring this up with him to get report from KLL and report back
Jun 02 16:37:15 russdeffner: i.e. participants, full-log and summary
Jun 02 16:37:43 Tyler_Radford: I also volunteer to check in with Andrej, in coordination with anyone else that would like to join
Jun 02 16:38:07 pierzen: I would join
Jun 02 16:38:09 robert_banick: Tyler_Radford: sounds great!
Jun 02 16:38:25 Tyler_Radford: thanks pierzen
Jun 02 16:38:55 russdeffner: so might I also suggest the 'action item' for 2 is Tyler to initiate communication for Nepal Activation Phase III:
Jun 02 16:38:55 cristiano: A couple more ideas ideas for after action work: 1) humanitarian tagging model working group and 2) lessons learned discussion series (imagery, damage assessment mapping, etc)
Jun 02 16:40:07 mkl: phase 3, excellent
Jun 02 16:40:16 Tyler_Radford: mkl and cristiano you both mentioned after action/lessons learned. cristiano I like the idea to break out lessons learned by topic - and have discussion series in coming weeks/month
Jun 02 16:40:25 russdeffner: not sure we've ever made it to phase 3 before :)
Jun 02 16:40:27 mkl: agreed
Jun 02 16:40:35 mkl: discussion series is a good way to digest it
Jun 02 16:40:47 BlakeGirardot: I'd like to get one action item on Nepal basemap fix ups
Jun 02 16:40:53 BlakeGirardot: one next step
Jun 02 16:43:03 cristiano: Regarding imagery, there are also imagery sources which we haven't used yet, and we should research how we could make those resources useable in the future (e.g. Planet's, UAVs).
Jun 02 16:43:39 russdeffner: ok, just to note we are about 45 minutes in; I think I can 'rush' all the protocol and curriculum stuff into 5 minutes or so
Jun 02 16:43:55 BlakeGirardot: Hold off there russ, one sec
Jun 02 16:44:12 BlakeGirardot: Really, one next step to start on fixing up nepal we can't come up with?
Jun 02 16:44:40 russdeffner: I already did - Tyler to start that communication loop with KLL and UN
Jun 02 16:45:19 russdeffner: for prioritizing the 'review and de-escalation'
Jun 02 16:45:30 russdeffner: i.e. initiate phase III
Jun 02 16:45:42 danbjoseph: there was the mention of an invite only task to start working on checking the road network tagging and connectivity, was that part of this agenda item?
Jun 02 16:45:43 Tyler_Radford: I think BlakeGirardot is also referring to cleanup from Phase II
Jun 02 16:45:54 BlakeGirardot: I thought that was a little diffent. Yes, what Tyler said
Jun 02 16:46:08 BlakeGirardot: Talking to KLL doesn't help us clean up the basemapping we have now.
Jun 02 16:46:45 BlakeGirardot: I'd like to have a concrete way forward on that. I guess I can go with pierzen and say lets come up with a validation workflow, but mine would be pretty simple and focus on roads.
Jun 02 16:47:06 russdeffner: oh, well speaking from my future vision of having curriculum complete and trained folks - we recruit a "Validation Lead"
Jun 02 16:47:12 robert_banick: I like the new cleanup task idea for the short term and the validation workflow for the medium term
Jun 02 16:47:35 russdeffner: that person 'spearheads' the clean-up effort?
Jun 02 16:48:16 BlakeGirardot: Ok, that helps too robert_banick, our base map is really our best product and I want it to shine.
Jun 02 16:48:18 BlakeGirardot: thm
Jun 02 16:48:22 BlakeGirardot: thank you.
Jun 02 16:48:45 BlakeGirardot: I'll work on it Russ
Jun 02 16:48:55 mkl: agree with russdeffner, needs someone responsible to keep validation on task
Jun 02 16:49:01 mkl: BlakeGirardot: right on
Jun 02 16:49:37 BlakeGirardot: So Russ, you are on.
Jun 02 16:49:39 cristiano: Do we know this road cleanup extent or just based on all previous tasks?
Jun 02 16:49:52 BlakeGirardot: Based on what we base mapped cristiano
Jun 02 16:50:07 BlakeGirardot: I but a quick and dirty extent is 1018 I think.
Jun 02 16:50:18 BlakeGirardot: and I'll figure out what else needs to be added to that area.
Jun 02 16:50:26 pierzen: + other basemaps
Jun 02 16:50:54 cristiano: OK, let's chat about that before you create the task
Jun 02 16:51:07 BlakeGirardot: For sure
Jun 02 16:51:10 russdeffner: First, I'm going to suggest a terminology 'adoption' - that is "Protocol"...
Jun 02 16:51:10 cristiano: (I mean, not now, later today)
Jun 02 16:51:40 russdeffner: because "Protocol" = HOT Policy
Jun 02 16:52:10 russdeffner: And the "Activation Protocol" is something that will need to be 'official adopted'
Jun 02 16:52:12 BlakeGirardot: Russ is talking about agenda item 3 "Finalize Draft Activation Protocol (Tyler? / Russ?)"
Jun 02 16:52:57 russdeffner: Talking with Blake, Tyler and others, I have suggested a similiar path as our bylaw amendments...
Jun 02 16:53:47 russdeffner: that is: working group drafts => it get's voted on/adopted...
Jun 02 16:54:09 russdeffner: one question that hasn't been 'finalized' is the "who votes?"
Jun 02 16:54:50 russdeffner: a bit beyond the scope of this group, just wanted to point out (in theory a Board vote would do - as Activation is so critical to HOT, maybe should go to voting members)
Jun 02 16:55:17 russdeffner: anyway, on to the tangible stuff for the AWG...
Jun 02 16:55:49 russdeffner: I made some moderately significant changes to the Activation Protocol over the last week
Jun 02 16:55:57 russdeffner:
Jun 02 16:56:24 russdeffner: Mainly the addition of the "Activator Roles"
Jun 02 16:56:44 cristiano: by "vote" do you mean to just approve it as a formal HOT document? What happens when it changes/evolves? Does it need another vote?
Jun 02 16:56:44 russdeffner: And how the early vision of the curriculum deliverables will 'alter' the protocol
Jun 02 16:57:40 russdeffner: @cristiano - yes; any policy of HOT will need at least approval of the Board and/or voting members - and any change/abandonment/etc
Jun 02 16:58:05 russdeffner: that is why we also want to make the Protocol as 'tool independent' as possible
Jun 02 16:58:05 pierzen: Let's be careful to keep flexibility of Activations. What is the objective to establish such rules? How do you justify we nee to vote all of these? Should we first assure that members to involve themselves?
Jun 02 16:58:15 robert_banick: +1 pierzen
Jun 02 16:58:38 russdeffner: yes, that is why we go through this draft/review/proposal process
Jun 02 16:58:49 robert_banick: Maybe there are some "principles" or "core" Activation things we can set in stone and a lot else we can document as recommendations or guidelines that are flexible?
Jun 02 16:59:12 russdeffner: Yes - Protocol set in stone, curriculum/training/tools flexible
Jun 02 16:59:43 russdeffner: hence the 'terminology' suggestion I started with
Jun 02 16:59:49 pierzen: Then how do you justify to have a voting process on this?
Jun 02 17:00:14 russdeffner: Anyway, since we are top of hour - main thing is Tyler and I expect to run this by the Board at their June meeting
Jun 02 17:00:16 mkl: there needs to be some process
Jun 02 17:00:30 russdeffner: so we want to have the Protocol in proposal mode by then
Jun 02 17:00:59 russdeffner: so let's say the AWG has this week for 'internal' review; next week I will ask voting members to also review
Jun 02 17:01:24 mkl: voting may be more than necessary. as long as there is consultation of synthesis into a workable document, than the need is satisfied
Jun 02 17:01:36 russdeffner: then by the AWG meeting on the 16th, we make 'final' adjustments before it goes off to the Board for 'intial review' then maybe to a ballot vote by voting members
Jun 02 17:02:06 mkl: russdeffner: i think "review" is a lot more workable, than "voting". you have the backing to put together these documents
Jun 02 17:02:15 Tyler_Radford: mkl right - voting may be a formality - really the important thing is that everyone has time to review and provide their input
Jun 02 17:02:23 mkl: voting is only necessary for governance level topics
Jun 02 17:02:56 russdeffner: yes, I believe that "Activation Protocol" is so intertwined with everything we do - it should be HOT Policy
Jun 02 17:03:17 russdeffner: curriculum and such, can be flexible/evolving
Jun 02 17:03:47 BlakeGirardot: Ya, it might become more significant to our operations at some time in the future too. And it gets buy-in and ownership across the organization.
Jun 02 17:04:11 mkl: sure, this stuff is really critical. but that doesn't make vote necessary or even desirable
Jun 02 17:04:12 BlakeGirardot: So I am not against an official "adoption" of some sort. Its pretty significant
Jun 02 17:04:31 russdeffner: also we may never have an answer for "how exactly is the declaration of Activation" done - unless we get some kind of 'formal adoption'
Jun 02 17:04:47 BlakeGirardot: Lets put a pin in that exact topic for later, we are not at that stage yet anyway :)
Jun 02 17:04:59 mkl: BlakeGirardot: _1
Jun 02 17:05:00 mkl: +1
Jun 02 17:05:21 russdeffner: yep - so this action item is for everyone to review and comment on the Protocol draft
Jun 02 17:06:00 russdeffner: by next week - then it will go 'elsewhere' (i.e. voting members, then maybe main list, etc...)
Jun 02 17:07:42 BlakeGirardot: Ok, so action item for all of us
Jun 02 17:07:46 russdeffner: ok, next item?
Jun 02 17:07:53 BlakeGirardot: Read it and comment please :)
Jun 02 17:07:57 russdeffner: @Blake - yes
Jun 02 17:08:03 BlakeGirardot: Item next as we say
Jun 02 17:08:37 BlakeGirardot: The Tasking Manager: We are going to be doing development on it. Can't say when exactly, but before we do we are goin
Jun 02 17:09:06 russdeffner: How best to stay 'in the loop' on TM dev?
Jun 02 17:09:07 BlakeGirardot: going collect as many comments and suggestions as we can and plan out some specifications for the changes and get feedback and commnets on those
Jun 02 17:09:43 BlakeGirardot: and by we I mean myself, Rekth, the person working with us on collecting and organizing that feedback into usable formats
Jun 02 17:09:50 BlakeGirardot: and the technical working group of course.
Jun 02 17:10:24 BlakeGirardot: How best to say in the loop he repeated as he thought of an answer...
Jun 02 17:10:29 mkl: BlakeGirardot: there's so much to simply mine from the GitHub issues
Jun 02 17:10:41 BlakeGirardot: That is the first think Rekth is tackling
Jun 02 17:10:50 BlakeGirardot: first thing*
Jun 02 17:10:53 mkl: is there a plan to support more development?
Jun 02 17:11:17 BlakeGirardot: There are some possiblities, well one that I know of, with plans to try and make more.
Jun 02 17:11:43 Tyler_Radford: mkl I'll jump in - we are first getting organized around the requests so we can better discuss with funders
Jun 02 17:12:01 mkl: right on
Jun 02 17:12:27 mkl: who is Rekth?
Jun 02 17:12:30 Tyler_Radford: Rekth is helping with that, under the guidance of Blake
Jun 02 17:12:31 BlakeGirardot: So I think the best way to stay in the loop is via the tasking manager github issues, by all means put issues or ideas in there. We are going to try and collect comments and Mhairi already has a
Jun 02 17:12:35 russdeffner: I think it would be great if the Tech WG started 'pre-preparing' plans for dev that could easily be ported into grant/fund application/requests/etc.
Jun 02 17:12:43 russdeffner: on all the projects
Jun 02 17:12:45 BlakeGirardot: long list she has gathered from the hot email list.
Jun 02 17:12:50 robert_banick: +1 russ, I like that idea mucho
Jun 02 17:13:02 BlakeGirardot: that is what we are sort of intending to do russdeffner
Jun 02 17:13:08 BlakeGirardot: at least on the tasking manager
Jun 02 17:13:23 russdeffner: great (hi dodobas - are you lurking in the AWG :)
Jun 02 17:13:33 pierzen: + imagery + task monitoring
Jun 02 17:13:34 BlakeGirardot: so put ideas and issues in github, but do look and see if it already exists as an issue there
Jun 02 17:14:05 Tyler_Radford: Rekth is a new intern from the Outreachy internship program
Jun 02 17:14:09 BlakeGirardot: and I will make sure we share with the activations wg email list and the technical wg email lists.
Jun 02 17:15:21 BlakeGirardot: but I don't think there are going to be a lot of changes until there is pretty good consensus.
Jun 02 17:15:35 pierzen: Helicopter crash in Sindhupalchowk It seems that they have hurt electric lines.
Jun 02 17:15:40 BlakeGirardot: I am pretty sure I shared a nice mock up of some of the ideas we sort of distilled from the last round of ideas
Jun 02 17:15:50 russdeffner: this is great - it's on my todo list to review existing issues/enhancement requests and see how it all fits with the curriculum
Jun 02 17:16:19 BlakeGirardot: I think I shared that with activation wg email list a week or so ago
Jun 02 17:17:09 russdeffner: I think I'm following all that traffic, will reach out to you or Rekth if I feel 'out of touch' :)
Jun 02 17:17:16 BlakeGirardot: You can certainly communicate with me anytime about anything related to the TM and I can make sure the comments and feed back get intere.
Jun 02 17:17:20 BlakeGirardot: in there*
Jun 02 17:17:59 dodobas: russdeffner: just idling :)
Jun 02 17:18:08 BlakeGirardot: Ya, please by all means, I am far from the most on top of everything person, if it seems like I am not keeping you (all of you) up to date, just ping me and remind me, but I'll try and make sure that doesnt happen.
Jun 02 17:18:59 russdeffner: dodobas: hehe, we were just talking about the Tech WG, so figured you might be interested
Jun 02 17:19:09 BlakeGirardot: Thats it for me for item 4, item 5 is AC updates from Russ, do you still need that or are we full up with the Protocol?
Jun 02 17:19:27 russdeffner: No, but I can quickly give Curriculum update
Jun 02 17:19:38 russdeffner: basically things are moving along very nicely
Jun 02 17:20:02 russdeffner: I have a 'core review team' that I run all the 'not fully thought out' stuff by first
Jun 02 17:20:29 russdeffner: and they have been amazing at questioning things and giving real constructive feedback
Jun 02 17:21:28 russdeffner: Mhairi worked to use some of the funds from the curriculum to get a few people to SOTM-US, that I will meet and get some 'one-on-one' time with
Jun 02 17:22:18 russdeffner: so tentatively by next AWG meeting, the "Initial Feedback Period" of development will conclude
Jun 02 17:22:51 russdeffner: that means I'll 'conceptually' have my road map for creating what is looking like around a dozen 'modules'
Jun 02 17:23:19 russdeffner: those modules are equivalent to the 'training required to fulfill an Activator role'
Jun 02 17:24:08 russdeffner: still some 'pieces under discussion' before I have anything 'new' to share - hopefully by next week
Jun 02 17:24:29 russdeffner: that's it - just an informational update/no aaction item
Jun 02 17:25:03 BlakeGirardot: Questions for russ?
Jun 02 17:26:31 BlakeGirardot: Any "other business"
Jun 02 17:26:34 BlakeGirardot: ?
Jun 02 17:26:41 Tyler_Radford: thanks russdeffner
Jun 02 17:27:47 cristiano: Yes, thanks Russ - the curriculum and protocol work you've been doing looks awesome so far!
Jun 02 17:28:01 BlakeGirardot: Yes, thank you russ, and a big thank you to everyone who attended, I found it really helpful all the input.
Jun 02 17:28:09 russdeffner: thanks everyone - only because of all the amazing work everyone has done before me
Jun 02 17:28:14 cristiano: Shall we try to tentatively schedule the Nepal after action discussion series?
Jun 02 17:28:38 BlakeGirardot: Lets talk about the structure cristiano
Jun 02 17:28:55 BlakeGirardot: What did you have in mind?
Jun 02 17:29:46 BlakeGirardot: Are these text meetings?
Jun 02 17:29:46 cristiano: Sure - re hum tagging discussion, probably a ad-hoc WG after an initial mumble/IRC chat with those interested?
Jun 02 17:30:17 BlakeGirardot: Ya, we need an ad-hoc group for tagging for sure.
Jun 02 17:30:32 cristiano: and for imagery-coord the same, but the list/wg already exists. These are the two I would like to contribute to
Jun 02 17:31:06 BlakeGirardot: Did we want to have Nepal specific series or topic specific, like "validation" with Nepal informing that topic or does it not matter?
Jun 02 17:32:16 cristiano: I think that's another great after action discussion to have, maybe the same person that sets up the validation/fixing tasks can lead that?
Jun 02 17:33:08 BlakeGirardot: I mean we sort of need to come up with some lessons learned and recommnedations for a number of topics after Nepal.
Jun 02 17:33:28 BlakeGirardot: Well, a few topics at least
Jun 02 17:33:38 BlakeGirardot: training, validation, support
Jun 02 17:34:22 Tyler_Radford: There is also how we coordinate with humanitarian agencies on the ground
Jun 02 17:34:45 cristiano: We also have an ongoing discussion about landslides, which we should continue to understand whether HOT can help or not? This involves other external orgs who reached to us to collaborate on a workflow that includes both GIS modelling, automatic feature extraction and crowdsourced mapping.
Jun 02 17:34:57 russdeffner: I would gladly help organize an after action review
Jun 02 17:35:18 russdeffner: we can make it quite simple to complete, but hopefully provide really good insights
Jun 02 17:36:14 BlakeGirardot: How would we have these topic discussions? Could we do it via email or do we need it to be text or mumble?
Jun 02 17:36:22 russdeffner: just keep me in the loop if you want my involvement
Jun 02 17:36:39 BlakeGirardot: I mean tagging is going to have to have an email list and some collaborative documents.
Jun 02 17:36:50 russdeffner: @Blake - I think an email, or even a really short survey monkey to the 'key activators'
Jun 02 17:37:00 cristiano: Let's make a list to share via email and then have a first meeting (IRC/Mumble) to start tackling one or two
Jun 02 17:37:14 BlakeGirardot: Ok, great
Jun 02 17:37:21 cristiano: tagging and imagery are larger issues and will need separate discssuion format
Jun 02 17:37:22 russdeffner: oh sorry, I'm talking more about the 'final' AAR
Jun 02 17:37:45 BlakeGirardot: ya russ we sort of mixed them here
Jun 02 17:37:54 BlakeGirardot: like cristiano says, imagery, tagging, larger issues
Jun 02 17:37:55 russdeffner: some of this is still 'evolving' discussion, not best 'tackled' until concluded
Jun 02 17:38:15 BlakeGirardot: from lessons learned and recommendations from our recent very large event
Jun 02 17:38:44 BlakeGirardot: but as cristiano says, just getting the topic area list down is a good first step
Jun 02 17:38:57 russdeffner: so yes, keep me 'on the back-burner' for AAR; I prefer 'fly on the wall' status for absorbing what you all do during an activation
Jun 02 17:38:58 BlakeGirardot: if i understood that correctly
Jun 02 17:39:54 cristiano: or we make a couple of Nepal AAR chats first and then we create a list from there. Whatever you think works more efficiently
Jun 02 17:41:19 BlakeGirardot: that sounds good to me too cristiano
Jun 02 17:41:26 cristiano: and we need to make sure most of those who are/were involved are able to join or provide input
Jun 02 17:41:55 BlakeGirardot: So how about in the next 2 weeks sometime, as we have more to do still
Jun 02 17:41:56 BlakeGirardot: ?
Jun 02 17:42:18 BlakeGirardot: and I mean in about 2 weeks or is that too long?
Jun 02 17:43:31 cristiano: 2 weeks should be fine, sooner if people are available
Jun 02 17:43:34 russdeffner: maybe just start a hackpad to email around, then return to it next meeting and see where we're at?
Jun 02 17:44:10 BlakeGirardot: I think we can do both russdeffner
Jun 02 17:44:27 BlakeGirardot: hackpad for people that works for, chat for people who that works for
Jun 02 17:44:37 BlakeGirardot: and then merge the results
Jun 02 17:44:48 russdeffner: sounds good to me
Jun 02 17:45:49 BlakeGirardot: Ok, I feel like I am closing the barn doors a little too late, but thank you again to everyone who attended, it was very helpful to me and I hope everyone else as well :)
Jun 02 17:46:18 Tyler_Radford: Thank you as well, same here
Jun 02 17:46:20 pierzen: Tyler_Radford: Coordinate with humanitarian agencies on the ground : this to be done through the Cluster meetings. As said before, we should discuss this with Nama
Jun 02 17:47:00 Tyler_Radford: pierzen completely agree. I was thinking this is a good topic for after action to talk about what it looks like going forward (e.g. what if we don't have a KLL on the ground)
Jun 02 17:47:25 robert_banick: +1 to that Tyler
Jun 02 17:47:49 robert_banick: The DHN was set up for crisis response, less recovery, but it seems the most natural mechanism. I'd be curious to hear Andrej's thoughts.
Jun 02 17:47:50 BlakeGirardot: Tyler_Radford: That is just what I was thinking, we are lucky this time, but we need to consider what we do next time. and I know that people like pierzen have struggled with this in the past too.
Jun 02 17:48:25 Tyler_Radford: great let's add this for an after action then and we can work on it collectively
Jun 02 17:51:17 russdeffner: Oh, and there goes Tyler - and I too must switch gears (thought we were doing one hour meetings :) - but all great stuff!
Jun 02 17:51:45 russdeffner: Blake - are you doing summary, etc? or need help?
Jun 02 17:51:48 robert_banick: thanks for being awesome everybody. it's back to work for me.
Jun 02 17:51:51 robert_banick: see you next time
Jun 02 17:52:04 russdeffner: Cheers!
Jun 02 17:53:49 BlakeGirardot: I can do the summary, but it going to be a day or so
Jun 02 17:54:12 russdeffner: ok, no problem - if you can't get around to it - ping me
Jun 02 17:54:13 BlakeGirardot: The next hot thing i write has to be the summit follow u