Humanitarian OSM Team/Working groups/Activation/meeting 2015-06-09

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Activation WG Meeting Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - 14:00 UTC

Participants (IRC handle)

  • BlakeGirardot ()
  • russdeffner ()
  • pierzen ()
  • cristiano ()
  • danbjoseph ()
  • Tyler_Radford ()

Links mentioned in meeting

Meeting Summary

  • Review last weeks meeting minutes
    • Russell suggested we should continue creating a summary for the wiki
    • Action item: before approving, Russell will make a summary - therefore this and last week will be approved next week.
  • Decide on working group leadership
    • Resolution: Severin is current board facilitator, Russell volunteered to co-lead but is unavailable next week; no other volunteers, so Blake offered to temporarily co-lead (although he is also board member and assisting with leading other wgs)
    • Anyone interested in co-leading let us know at the next meeting
    • Action Item: Leads to have place for agenda and meeting announced by Sunday
  • Nepal Updates
    • From Tyler:
      • spoke with Nama, lots of coordination with Nepal army and government and Canadian armed forces.
      • suggestion to get more integration with UN cluster meetings. Nama is following up on this.
      • takeaways: please give another week or so to determine relief/recovery agency needs.
    • Action Item: Blake to continue organizing validation/clean-up in the meantime
    • Quick discussion on needing better ways to vet requests - need clearer asks and be able to say no
    • Suggestion to utilize DHN more for translating those needs into clear requests.
  • Tagging Schema
    • Mid-way some people had to leave
    • Action Item: continue discussion in other channels for tagging and imagery discussions
  • Activation Protocol
    • Action Item: anyone with objection to opening the draft to 'public' review email Russell
    • Action Item: in next few days Russell will email Board and Membership to review; soon after that, the public mailing list
  • Tasking Manager Update
    • Good progress going on github
    • Make sure to check that your issues/suggestions are there
  • Activation Curriculum
    • 10 Roles have been identified to build training modules around
    • Curriculum Outline is transitioning from draft to 'final'
    • Draft Narrative in the works (to explain history/process of Activation)


Jun 09 15:59:43 russdeffner: hello, do we have an agenda somewhere for the AWG - I don't see one on wiki?
Jun 09 15:59:56 BlakeGirardot: Russ, long time no see
Jun 09 16:00:08 BlakeGirardot: I was just looking at that myself.
Jun 09 16:00:10 russdeffner: Hi Blake
Jun 09 16:01:24 russdeffner: I've barely had time to get my laptop unpacked, so I really only have one item - the 'final' review of the Activation Protocol
Jun 09 16:01:45 BlakeGirardot:
Jun 09 16:03:56 danbjoseph: AWG meeting this week?
Jun 09 16:04:20 russdeffner: Hi Dan, yep - just getting started
Jun 09 16:04:28 BlakeGirardot: I think abbreviated.
Jun 09 16:04:31 BlakeGirardot: But yes.
Jun 09 16:04:41 danbjoseph: great. thanks.
Jun 09 16:04:57 russdeffner: Blake - did you attend either TWG meeting yesterday?
Jun 09 16:05:03 BlakeGirardot: I did.
Jun 09 16:05:19 russdeffner: Unfortunatley that was right when I needed to head to the airport
Jun 09 16:05:31 russdeffner: what was attendance like?
Jun 09 16:05:42 BlakeGirardot: Pretty good really
Jun 09 16:05:48 BlakeGirardot: <--- irc log
Jun 09 16:05:52 russdeffner: oh, great
Jun 09 16:06:07 BlakeGirardot: Actually, wait
Jun 09 16:06:11 BlakeGirardot: what was the question?
Jun 09 16:06:23 BlakeGirardot: we have to TWGs yesterday
Jun 09 16:07:49 russdeffner: mainly just wanted to know if there were enough folks to get some stuff done - sounds like there were
Jun 09 16:08:10 russdeffner: anyway - for the AWG, here is the agenda everyone:
Jun 09 16:08:14 BlakeGirardot: Like I said, which one Technical or Training?
Jun 09 16:08:24 russdeffner: both
Jun 09 16:08:45 BlakeGirardot: Oh "either" I see.
Jun 09 16:08:55 BlakeGirardot: Ya, I did and I think they both went well
Jun 09 16:09:22 BlakeGirardot: I just sent an email to the HOT list, lets give it 5 mins
Jun 09 16:09:27 BlakeGirardot: to see if anyone else shows up
Jun 09 16:09:39 BlakeGirardot: Russ are you going to be the official lead for this group?
Jun 09 16:09:48 BlakeGirardot: co lead?
Jun 09 16:10:07 russdeffner: co-lead, yes I volunteered for that
Jun 09 16:10:26 BlakeGirardot: And was there a partner for that?
Jun 09 16:10:31 russdeffner: is Severin no longer facilitator?
Jun 09 16:10:59 BlakeGirardot: I don' think he can, I think he works on Tuesdays now, not sure for how long of an engagement that will be.
Jun 09 16:12:28 BlakeGirardot: But there is still this concept of 2 co-leads and a facilitator
Jun 09 16:12:30 russdeffner: Ok, understandable; so before we get too far into that topic; I do have a 'request' for last meeting minutes
Jun 09 16:12:57 russdeffner: the agenda did not 'evolve' into a summary
Jun 09 16:13:37 russdeffner: I think the WG's have an 'obligation' to summarize their meetings - full log is good, but summary will reach more people
Jun 09 16:14:04 BlakeGirardot: Ok, I am going to guess that is something one of the leads can do or find someone to do.
Jun 09 16:14:07 danbjoseph: bad for me to comment when i didn't offer to help do it, but i think it would be good to have a summary or at least pull out the action items in the same way the links are pulled out
Jun 09 16:14:53 BlakeGirardot: I think it is a good idea and great if someone will do it.
Jun 09 16:15:17 russdeffner: I can do it, but it really should be done beforehand; now question is do we 'Table' the item?
Jun 09 16:15:18 BlakeGirardot: I used to do them pretty often, unfortunately I can't do them as much any more.
Jun 09 16:15:37 russdeffner: i.e. next time we will have two agenda summaries to approve
Jun 09 16:16:03 russdeffner: or do we put today on hold so I can type up the summary asap
Jun 09 16:16:31 cristiano: Good morning/day!
Jun 09 16:16:53 BlakeGirardot: I personally would approve them as is and do the summary going forward, or alternately wait and approve them both next time.
Jun 09 16:17:02 BlakeGirardot: Hi cristiano
Jun 09 16:17:28 russdeffner: ok, I'd like to not throw a hurdle into the meeting today
Jun 09 16:17:46 cristiano: Are we going through the agenda yet?
Jun 09 16:17:53 BlakeGirardot: Ya, we are on item one
Jun 09 16:17:59 russdeffner: so: Action Item: Russ to summarize the June 2nd meeting
Jun 09 16:18:18 BlakeGirardot: Ya, I would suggest saying "action item" so summaries could be easier
Jun 09 16:18:20 russdeffner: During June 16 meeting this summary of June 2 and June 9 to be approved
Jun 09 16:18:45 russdeffner: However, just FYI - I will not be available for the June 16 meeting (i.e. next week)
Jun 09 16:19:38 russdeffner: item 2... unless someone has more for item 1
Jun 09 16:20:13 BlakeGirardot: So item 2 - one of the co-leads is Russ
Jun 09 16:20:25 BlakeGirardot: or russ has offered to be one of the co-leads
Jun 09 16:21:27 BlakeGirardot: I will be glad to be the other co-lead until we get a large attendece and can find another community member to be co-lead
Jun 09 16:21:32 BlakeGirardot: larger*
Jun 09 16:21:38 russdeffner: maybe Blake can give a bit more insight to Board vision... should that 'facilitator' board member be 'vetting/selecting' these leads?
Jun 09 16:21:46 BlakeGirardot: No
Jun 09 16:21:58 BlakeGirardot: I mean, no the board member
Jun 09 16:22:04 BlakeGirardot: doesn't need to do anything like that
Jun 09 16:22:11 BlakeGirardot: facilitator is not a great word
Jun 09 16:22:16 russdeffner: ok, good to know
Jun 09 16:22:19 BlakeGirardot: for the role that got talked about
Jun 09 16:22:35 russdeffner: yes - there's probably something better, old habits :)
Jun 09 16:22:36 BlakeGirardot: it was more just a board member to be able to report back to the board, be available to ask questions
Jun 09 16:22:43 BlakeGirardot: maybe communicate from the board to the WG
Jun 09 16:23:21 BlakeGirardot: But really, the main thrust was to try and get the WGs to be community driven as much as possible
Jun 09 16:24:41 BlakeGirardot: The only exception to that being the communications wg, which has a bit of a more public role and hence needs a bit more guidence, ideally from the Executive Director
Jun 09 16:25:55 russdeffner: ok, so anyone else interested in co-leading? Also to note: working group leads don't need to be expert - just create agendas, make announcements and 'facilitate' the meetings
Jun 09 16:25:58 cristiano: Especially for the AWG it is important that current activation coordinator be able to attend. How can we can facilitate their participation?
Jun 09 16:26:36 BlakeGirardot: Better visibility of the meetings
Jun 09 16:26:46 BlakeGirardot: will help. No other group meets every week I don't think.
Jun 09 16:27:30 BlakeGirardot: But it is a really difficult question cristiano for all the WG really, but yes, AWG in particular.
Jun 09 16:28:49 russdeffner: another reason we need two leads - if we get agendas out ahead of time, then at least people who can't attend have a chance to add items for discussion
Jun 09 16:29:13 BlakeGirardot: Yes, that is a good point
Jun 09 16:29:27 russdeffner: but when one (me) is not really available, or has way too much fun to think about agendas, then it gets skipped
Jun 09 16:30:04 BlakeGirardot: Ok, so we will get agendas out at least 2 days before?
Jun 09 16:30:17 BlakeGirardot: So Sundays
Jun 09 16:30:21 cristiano: Maybe going back to every two week could help. We should check with Nama and Pierre for the short term on their availability
Jun 09 16:30:22 BlakeGirardot: Sunday nights, agenda out
Jun 09 16:30:26 russdeffner: So, a 'side-action-item' - when I summarize last week and today; I will create agenda for next week
Jun 09 16:30:45 pierzen: Hi will read the log first
Jun 09 16:30:58 russdeffner: I strongly encourage we stick to every week for the AWG
Jun 09 16:31:30 BlakeGirardot: You want me paste in the last 100 lines again pierzen ? :) (embarrassing mistake I made yesterday)
Jun 09 16:31:49 pierzen: looking on sahan
Jun 09 16:32:11 BlakeGirardot: I can do it right if sahana not updated yet.
Jun 09 16:33:00 russdeffner: so, let's try to keep moving - currently the consensus on item 2 is that Blake and me will co-lead this group until others have had a chance to think and come forward
Jun 09 16:33:20 BlakeGirardot: agreed
Jun 09 16:33:21 russdeffner: noting again that I won't be available next week, so it's on you Blake :)
Jun 09 16:33:27 BlakeGirardot: understood
Jun 09 16:33:34 russdeffner: Ok, item 3
Jun 09 16:35:18 BlakeGirardot: pierzen is the only activation coordinator here at the moment.
Jun 09 16:35:24 cristiano: what's the link to sahana logs again? Maybe we can post it with each agenda?
Jun 09 16:35:45 Alek:
Jun 09 16:35:46 BlakeGirardot: We post just the meeting logs usuaally cristiano which is easier
Jun 09 16:35:53 BlakeGirardot: for people to review
Jun 09 16:36:38 russdeffner: yes, because the log is by day, so if you say 'go look at the June 9 log' you have to scroll through 14 hours worth of other stuff to get here
Jun 09 16:36:49 BlakeGirardot: for me at least it is less than a 5 minute job to post the irc logs to wiki, copy/paste/regex/copy/paste
Jun 09 16:37:04 pierzen: @russdeffner: We are volunteers meeting in WG. No Obligation to do a summary. People interested can read the log. The important is the discussions, to bring ideas and progrress.
Jun 09 16:37:35 russdeffner: yes @pierzen - but we can do much better at telling our story with an easy to read summary
Jun 09 16:37:56 russdeffner: we have lots of people telling us they don't know how to participate or what we are doing - this is part of problem
Jun 09 16:38:04 russdeffner: we also need to hold our volunteers accountable
Jun 09 16:38:27 russdeffner: and if they want privilege, it comes with responsibilities
Jun 09 16:39:02 pierzen: Volunteers accountable?
Jun 09 16:39:09 BlakeGirardot: russdeffner is a task master :)
Jun 09 16:39:09 russdeffner: yes
Jun 09 16:39:10 pierzen: Engagement first
Jun 09 16:39:28 pierzen: Nepal Activation over the last week. Contribution went slowly and no discussions.
Jun 09 16:40:28 BlakeGirardot: I think it can go either way russ and pierre, summaries are great if we can get them done, but if we can't the log is good as well. It is a lot more critical for meetings that are voice than text.
Jun 09 16:40:43 BlakeGirardot: (I am looking at you communications wg ;)
Jun 09 16:40:44 pierzen: Accountability, you should ask this to the Board ?
Jun 09 16:42:09 russdeffner: yes, but we can also hold ourselves accountable - i.e. I volunteered to co-lead this group, if I fail to send agenda, etc. - then it is ok to say 'what the heck, Russ'
Jun 09 16:42:40 BlakeGirardot: We have an agenda here :) It is a fair comment from both, we would like to make the WGs more important and trying to get a little more structure to them and get them to feel a sense of responibiliyt is one part of that process.
Jun 09 16:43:14 BlakeGirardot: So summaries, russ is standing up and saying he would like the wg he leads to have them and will do them himself if need be, thats great.
Jun 09 16:43:48 BlakeGirardot: pierzen: Did you have anything on the 2nd agenda item about working group lead? russ is one of the leads, we need a 2nd
Jun 09 16:44:00 BlakeGirardot: and that is me until we find someone else.
Jun 09 16:46:33 BlakeGirardot: Then we are on item 3, activations
Jun 09 16:47:32 BlakeGirardot: We will need to eventually get some updates on activations that are ongoing
Jun 09 16:47:47 BlakeGirardot: figure out where we are with them as we move out of major crisis mode
Jun 09 16:47:55 pierzen: To be accountable, we should for example be responsible of budgets. This is not the case.
Jun 09 16:48:03 BlakeGirardot: and back into more regular operations.
Jun 09 16:48:29 russdeffner: I see items 8 and 9 are related to Nepal; should we 'merge' them here?
Jun 09 16:48:53 Tyler_Radford: russdeffner yes pls
Jun 09 16:49:30 russdeffner: ok - Cristiano, did you add those? who would like to present these items (as sub-points of item 3)?
Jun 09 16:51:22 russdeffner: Tyler_Radford - I guess go ahead with the 'phase III' point if you'd like
Jun 09 16:51:39 Tyler_Radford: on point 3b there was a question raised last meeting
Jun 09 16:52:00 Tyler_Radford: "Where do we go from here" on Nepal mapping - how do we align ourselves with the recovery needs on the ground
Jun 09 16:53:03 Tyler_Radford: I spoke with Nama more on this. To date, lots of coordination with with Nepal army and government, canadian armed forces
Jun 09 16:53:45 miblon: I have had good experience in the past with meetbot with some easy commands, you can streamline a meeting and make logs better readable
Jun 09 16:54:08 BlakeGirardot: did they say want they want out of us now? Because I have ideas for what we need to do independent of any coordination.
Jun 09 16:54:20 Tyler_Radford: There was a suggestion to get more integration with UN cluster meetings. Nama is taking this as a followup and will look into attending one or two of the clusters
Jun 09 16:54:39 BlakeGirardot: miblon: Thank you, we have tried it and should revisit it.
Jun 09 16:54:54 Tyler_Radford: Basically the takeaway was: please give him another week or so to better determine what relief/recovery agency needs are. He will come back to us
Jun 09 16:55:04 BlakeGirardot: ok,
Jun 09 16:55:13 Tyler_Radford: So BlakeGirardot - we can/should continue with other validation/cleanup in the meantime
Jun 09 16:55:33 * BlakeGirardot nods vigorously. Jun 09 16:55:50 BlakeGirardot: Ya, I think that needs to be done and will help any thing going forward.
Jun 09 16:56:03 BlakeGirardot: Which fits in well with giving Nama some time
Jun 09 16:56:11 Tyler_Radford: Right
Jun 09 16:56:32 BlakeGirardot: The only other thing I would mention is that sometimes we have to be able to say 'no' to somethings. We can't do everything requested of us
Jun 09 16:57:15 BlakeGirardot: But depending on what it is, we can help find the right solution to the request
Jun 09 16:57:24 BlakeGirardot: it just might not be us and hot/osm
Jun 09 16:57:49 Tyler_Radford: Agree - from here, we can at least determine what the needs are on the ground, and evaluate whether we're the best one's to fulfill them or to refer to a partner
Jun 09 16:58:36 Tyler_Radford: But BlakeGirardot as you said lots to do anyway even before we get more information from the ground
Jun 09 16:59:14 BlakeGirardot: So pierzen what do you think should be the focus while we wait for more from KLL ?
Jun 09 16:59:23 cristiano: We also need to have clear requests and know who is requesting and for what purpose they need the task/data. I feel on some requests for help from HOT there were no clear instructions or what exactly was needed (e.g. landslides)
Jun 09 16:59:44 BlakeGirardot: cristiano: +1
Jun 09 17:01:32 cristiano: activation coordinators should review each request and assess if HOT's capacity is appropriate for the task. There may be other groups more qualified on doing some of the damage assessment work for example (at least for the moment)
Jun 09 17:02:25 pierzen: For the BaseMap, we simply take the lead early in the response and progress as quiclky as possiblle. Plus we adjust to particular requests. For post-disaster tasks,we have to examine. Many organisations and redundancies. And this is less our expertise.
Jun 09 17:03:01 BlakeGirardot: ya to both of you, that is what i was thinking, especially after meeting with the copernicus people.
Jun 09 17:03:44 BlakeGirardot: "Damage assessments? Landslides?" "not really what we do best, but we do know who does that best, can get the info from them and incorporate it into our basemap for you"
Jun 09 17:05:21 cristiano: Agree. So we need to work relationships with these other mapping groups and facilitate integration with OSM if that's going to be the common database/platform.
Jun 09 17:05:31 BlakeGirardot: and really we are getting ready to set up a process to start getting what all these orgs produce anyway, copernicus, jrc, ithica, un-spider, etc so we don't have to use inexperienced crowd mappers and they can do what they do best, base map.
Jun 09 17:06:25 russdeffner: just to note we have crossed the 1 hour mark and have 4 other items
Jun 09 17:06:38 Tyler_Radford: Digital Humanitarian Network is also hiring a Nepal coordinator. In theory there should be more cross-DHN member collab and discussion
Jun 09 17:06:45 cristiano: Unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes, I just wanted to mention that I will initiate a discussion for Nepal after action review on imagery-coord regarding imagery
Jun 09 17:07:02 Tyler_Radford: Also need to leave now, thank you everyone
Jun 09 17:07:05 cristiano: And I will join in on the humanitarian data model/tagging working group
Jun 09 17:07:57 russdeffner: cirstiano - how is that being organized?
Jun 09 17:08:40 BlakeGirardot: russdeffner did you miss my email asking for people to participate?
Jun 09 17:08:51 russdeffner: yes, it's probably in my inbox
Jun 09 17:09:05 BlakeGirardot: I am thinking, hate to say it, but an email list
Jun 09 17:09:08 BlakeGirardot: and some meetings
Jun 09 17:09:10 russdeffner: with the other 240 emails that I haven't had time to read
Jun 09 17:09:18 cristiano: Going to send out an email to imagery-coord list and propose items for discussion. Then either dedicated meetings or just threads through email
Jun 09 17:09:43 BlakeGirardot: Do you think we need a dedicated email list cristiano ?
Jun 09 17:09:54 russdeffner: ok - thanks
Jun 09 17:09:55 BlakeGirardot: I am pretty sure we need at collaborative document and meeting or two
Jun 09 17:10:24 BlakeGirardot: we are not that far away really, Alek was quite helpful yesterday after the training wg
Jun 09 17:11:02 BlakeGirardot: and the majority of the HDM part will go fast, it is really just the damage and event specific tagging that needs to get worked out.
Jun 09 17:11:30 BlakeGirardot: damage, landslides, camps, inundation areas, etc, the trainsient stuff.
Jun 09 17:14:45 BlakeGirardot: Ok then.
Jun 09 17:14:52 russdeffner: I guess that's item 4 then?
Jun 09 17:15:13 BlakeGirardot: I'd say so. Item 5?
Jun 09 17:15:48 russdeffner: So, this is just the continuation of getting the Activation Protocol draft/proposal to the Board at their meeting this month
Jun 09 17:16:05 russdeffner: link:
Jun 09 17:16:33 BlakeGirardot: have you sent that to the board yet so they can look it over before the meeting?
Jun 09 17:17:00 russdeffner: I was under the assumption that Tyler presented at the May meeting
Jun 09 17:17:18 russdeffner: (would be nice to just present things myself :)
Jun 09 17:18:04 russdeffner: but unless there are significant reasons to not do this - I want to send message to main list for 'public review period'
Jun 09 17:19:02 BlakeGirardot: I know he mentioned it, I was just thinking that for the "near final draft" a reminder to the board to review it might help
Jun 09 17:19:41 russdeffner: ok, I can do that
Jun 09 17:20:46 russdeffner: so, basically that's it - email me or something if you have a strong argument against public review of the document at this time
Jun 09 17:21:12 russdeffner: I probably will not get around to sending any messages until late this week
Jun 09 17:21:25 BlakeGirardot: one sec
Jun 09 17:22:33 BlakeGirardot: Ok, ya, I see there is room for more feedback.
Jun 09 17:22:49 BlakeGirardot: were you planning on opening it up for editing, or just comments? (
Jun 09 17:24:11 BlakeGirardot: Either way, whatever you think is best, I am not sure how well people use the comments in google docs so hopefully they can email comments as well. and I would send an email to the board address too
Jun 09 17:24:12 russdeffner: Just commenting
Jun 09 17:24:18 BlakeGirardot: to make sure it gets their attention.
Jun 09 17:24:51 BlakeGirardot: (that came out wrong, I know you will let them email comments, I mean, I hope they will email comments as well)
Jun 09 17:24:58 russdeffner: ok, maybe I'll do Board/Membership email first, then main list
Jun 09 17:25:21 russdeffner: yes - comments can be direct on gdocs or to me (or Tyler) via email
Jun 09 17:25:40 BlakeGirardot: Item 6
Jun 09 17:25:55 BlakeGirardot: Tasking manager review of existing issues goes on
Jun 09 17:26:23 russdeffner: I have seen a flurry of activity via github recently
Jun 09 17:26:25 BlakeGirardot: catorization into the UI related and non UI related and further categorization by functional area in the TM
Jun 09 17:26:50 russdeffner: again, not a lot of time to pay attention, but seems like some great momentum
Jun 09 17:26:54 BlakeGirardot: Soon to be prioritized
Jun 09 17:27:12 pgiraud_: russdeffner, I don't think adding/modifyings labels of issues sends notifications
Jun 09 17:27:15 BlakeGirardot: so review the issues, search and see if your pet issue is in there
Jun 09 17:27:29 BlakeGirardot: if your pet issue or idea is not in there add it
Jun 09 17:27:43 BlakeGirardot: If you like to dislike an existing issue, comment
Jun 09 17:27:51 BlakeGirardot: like or dislike*
Jun 09 17:28:48 BlakeGirardot: but do it soon because wheels are turning, dies are being cast, stone is being carved, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Jun 09 17:29:05 BlakeGirardot: (ok, that was a little dramatic, but do please review and comment :)
Jun 09 17:29:28 BlakeGirardot: Question?
Jun 09 17:29:31 BlakeGirardot: s
Jun 09 17:31:02 BlakeGirardot: has item 7 been covered russ?
Jun 09 17:31:20 russdeffner: pgiraud_ - I don't think so either, but seems like discussion there are leading to some good progress - at least with triage/priority
Jun 09 17:31:50 russdeffner: BlakeGirardot - no, but I don't have a whole lot
Jun 09 17:32:27 russdeffner: basically at sotm-us hack-day (yesterday) I had a handful of people in the room as I sort of talked through the process
Jun 09 17:33:11 russdeffner: great feedback, but it seems now I am reaching a point where it's becoming much more clear to explain where we are headed with curriculum (not to be confused with Protocol)
Jun 09 17:33:57 russdeffner: So, just quickly - if you haven't looked at the Protocol lately, you'll see I add the 10 Activator Roles into the 'selecting the team' section
Jun 09 17:34:25 russdeffner: next step is to build the training modules to empower people to understand and be able to perform those roles
Jun 09 17:34:58 russdeffner: does not mean each Activation needs 10 people; 1 person could be performing the roles depending on scope/scale of event
Jun 09 17:36:22 BlakeGirardot: i don't know how to properly explain it and it is a minor point, but I like "activation roles" better than "activator roles"
Jun 09 17:36:39 BlakeGirardot: these are roles that get played in an activation
Jun 09 17:36:56 russdeffner: but should allow a greater flexibility and easier 'ask' for help; i.e. instead of having to explain "I need a volunteer to look at imagery, do this, do that, etc." ask can be "I need an Imagery Specialist"
Jun 09 17:36:58 BlakeGirardot: and are not nesscicarily someone who is an "activator"
Jun 09 17:38:42 russdeffner: BlakeGirardot - ok, I do see your point but think maybe we need to hear more opinions on specific wording(s)
Jun 09 17:39:16 BlakeGirardot: sounds good
Jun 09 17:39:18 russdeffner: of course everything is still in draft mode until at least the next HOT Board meeting
Jun 09 17:40:26 russdeffner: If it helps, it may be easier to see why/how some of the wording was selected by looking at curriculum outline:
Jun 09 17:41:29 russdeffner: I think it's also getting a bit difficult to explain via text; maybe a google hangout or something in the near future
Jun 09 17:42:17 russdeffner: or, better yet - it's always been difficult to explain/understand via text - there are definitely some 'motives' that may not be well understood
Jun 09 17:42:53 BlakeGirardot: I will do look at that, I still have not gone over it in detail
Jun 09 17:43:31 BlakeGirardot: I put a comment on the doc so maybe others will chime in and see if there is any opinion one way or another on it. like i said, pretty minor point.
Jun 09 17:43:42 russdeffner: Lastly, I'll just say I've been working on a 'narrative' that maybe helps:
Jun 09 17:44:10 BlakeGirardot: something about the narrative link doesn't work for me
Jun 09 17:44:13 BlakeGirardot: is just a blank page
Jun 09 17:44:34 BlakeGirardot: now it works
Jun 09 17:44:37 BlakeGirardot: reload fixed it
Jun 09 17:44:37 russdeffner: still very much work-in-progress, but eventually will become a 'complete' explaination, including history
Jun 09 17:45:17 russdeffner: ok - I was going to say, lot's of different restrictions/access privilege so just request access if that is it
Jun 09 17:45:46 russdeffner: slowly I am releasing these for broader audience view/comment/etc
Jun 09 17:46:16 BlakeGirardot: it is all looking good, nice work russ
Jun 09 17:47:05 russdeffner: thanks, that's it from me; I guess 'any other business'?
Jun 09 17:47:14 BlakeGirardot: I am out of business :)
Jun 09 17:48:06 BlakeGirardot: except to say thank you again to miblon for the meetbot reminder. if I could find a good reliable place to run it I think we should
Jun 09 17:49:16 russdeffner: yes, that would be great
Jun 09 17:49:38 russdeffner: I will hopefully have time today to summarize and get everything onto the wiki
Jun 09 17:49:46 BlakeGirardot: I can put the log in there
Jun 09 17:49:53 russdeffner: ok, that'd be great