Humanitarian OSM Team/Working groups/Activation/meeting 2012-03-15
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
First meeting of the HOT activations working group which took place on IRC on Thu 15th March 2012
IRC logs
09:58 < harry-wood> HOT Activation meeting here… in 2 minutes? 09:59 < harry-wood> (or did I get my timezones wrong again?) 10:01 < flavour> Correcttimezone 10:01 < balrog-k2n> harry-wood: hi, no, you're right according to what was said 20 mins ago 10:03 < harry-wood> Excellent. Schuyler will join us too hopefuly 10:05 < Schuyler> hello 10:05 < Schuyler> sorry for the delay 10:05 < harry-wood> Hello! 10:05 < Schuyler> what's up guys 10:05 < Schuyler> welcome! 10:05 < Schuyler> so, HOT Activation Working Group. 10:06 < Schuyler> basically, the issue that we have to take up is that crises come and crises go, and we don't have any policy or guidelines in place for how HOT can be expected to respond to possible opportunities to be of humanitarian assistance. 10:07 < flavour> HOT = Community of Volunteers (who don't need formal activations) or the (very limited) pot of money? 10:07 < Schuyler> partly it's a question of consistency: when/how can potential users of OSM data for humanitarian purposes *outside of the OSM community* know/expect that we can support them? 10:07 < flavour> To me expect => $, ask => hope 10:07 < Schuyler> partly it's a question of stewardship of resources: HOT has a pool of volunteers and possibly other resources... how do we marshal them to the best use? 10:07 < Schuyler> so that's what we're here to discuss. 10:08 < Schuyler> who is present for the meeting? quick show of hands 10:08 < flavour> What other resources are there? 10:08 < PierZen> HI 10:09 < harry-wood> I am present 10:09 < harry-wood> It looks like 'flavour' is present :-) 10:10 < Schuyler> welcome everyone and thanks for your interest. 10:10 < Schuyler> everyone present has been involved in an 'HOT activation' of one kind or another, correct? 10:11 < PierZen> Yes. 10:11 < harry-wood> Has everyone see the 'HOT activation' wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation 10:11 < harry-wood> That's something I put together a while ago now 10:11 < Schuyler> that's a good start, thanks Harry 10:11 < harry-wood> …which lays out some things in the *run up to* an activation 10:12 < harry-wood> I think it also offers a way to scale gracefully, and let the community participate in early responses to disasters which may or may not turn out to be activations 10:12 < flavour> Which I agree is important 10:13 < harry-wood> By this I mean the disaster may or may not be "significant" enough. 10:13 < Schuyler> as I see it, our task is to devise a set of recommendations for general assent that describe (a) what are the criteria for a 'HOT activation' and (b) what happens when HOT 'activates' 10:13 < flavour> I think (b) has to come 1st 10:13 < Schuyler> it seems evident that humanitarian crisis comes in a variety or range of "scales" 10:13 < flavour> Until we know what activatyion mans, how can we know when it should be done? 10:14 < flavour> Very much so - most are responded to locally 10:14 < Schuyler> so -- that implies a range or variety of "scales" of activation 10:14 < harry-wood> The presence of lack of imagery and other factors shape things quite fundamentally too. If there's nothing for the mapping community to work with… should it still be an activation? 10:14 < Schuyler> on one side, we have Haiti - a disaster with a global response 10:15 < PierZen> Our capacity to activate for big disasters is related to the tools we can offer. An other aspect to discuss is about the resources and more particularly for less experienced people.. Should we look at adapted Tool Kit with editor that integrates simple Humanitarian Presets. 10:15 < Schuyler> and the other, perhaps the recent flooding in the Phillippines, where most of the volunteers doing remote mapping were Filipino 10:15 < Schuyler> and HOT's involvement could best be described as merely providing infrastructure 10:15 < PierZen> yes 10:16 < Schuyler> in between, something like the quake in Japan last year, which was quite large but had a more modest global response than haiti, partly because the area was already quite well mapped 10:16 < Schuyler> Afk 1 min, please carry on 10:16 < PierZen> we provided tools, maps, JOSM styles and presets, ectc. 10:18 < harry-wood> Here's another case… Somebody popped on the mailing list last week, and I think it went largely unnoticed. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/2012-March/001587.html 10:18 < harry-wood> but I actually emailed the MapAction guy 10:18 < harry-wood> and asked if he'd like the OSM community to pile in and map Brazzaville 10:19 < PierZen> I did to. They were not contacted to deploy. 10:19 < harry-wood> I only emailed a day or two afterwards, by which time it might have been too late. I think as it turned out they were still waiting to decide at that point 10:20 < harry-wood> and basically it was looking like not such a big deal. 10:20 < PierZen> This type of activation ii is hard to say how we can help. 10:21 < Schuyler> right. 10:21 < harry-wood> I spent an hour or so examining our map coverage and the availability of bing … adding some data and fixing some mess in the data . Also useful for getting a feel of whether an activation would work 10:21 < AndrewBuck> One way we could help is by doing armchair mapping to aid the ground teams, but that of course assumes we have imagery. 10:22 < Schuyler> so over a year ago (like after ICCM 2010) I wrote an "activation protocol" for coordinating with MapAction modelled after Hait 10:22 < Schuyler> (posting that now) 10:22 < harry-wood> I had the feeling I should've been following a protocol in this instance 10:22 < Schuyler> so, there are a lot of ways that HOT can contribute 10:22 < harry-wood> which might've avoided duplicate emails with PierZen for example 10:22 < AndrewBuck> it would be good for people going in with ground teams to have a way to tell us what would be most valuable to them to have traced to aid their work. 10:22 < Schuyler> if we have a formal partner doing a formal deployment, *and* we can get imagery, we can call out the whole OSM community 10:23 < Schuyler> but then *getting imagery* depends in some sense on what we can do with it 10:23 < Schuyler> we can get imagery from the US State Dept, for example, if we can justify the requisition on humanitarian grounds 10:24 < PierZen> For Brazzaville, what was needed was to spot hospitals, schools, etc. It was less osm mapping. 10:24 < Schuyler> but we don't want to call out the WHOLE community for *every* disaster 10:24 < Schuyler> because they will get tired of being called out. 10:25 < PierZen> Yes there are projects where HOT Team can collaborate, other where we use an Activation to have more people. 10:25 < PierZen> more or less. 10:26 < harry-wood> Is it possible to devise some sort of flow diagram for all of this? 10:28 < harry-wood> It occurs to me that what i should've done in the case of Brazzaville …was set up the wiki page to describe what I'd found about the state of mapping there 10:28 < Schuyler> http://iconocla.st/o/mapaction.txt is the thing I was talking about 10:28 < Schuyler> so -- it seems like one thing we need to do is identify what actions HOT can take which would qualify as "activation" 10:29 < Schuyler> flavour is right 10:29 < Schuyler> if we brainstorm that list, then we can talk about what kinds of triggers should prompt those responses 10:29 < flavour> * Calling out the Comnmunity seems to be the big one so far 10:29 < flavour> * Formal request for Imagery 10:29 < Schuyler> yep 10:29 < Schuyler> * Setting up a tasking server job 10:29 < flavour> * Setting up Tasks on Tasking server 10:29 < flavour> ;) 10:30 < Schuyler> * Doing an analysis of existing data sets for a given area 10:30 < flavour> No, I don't thibnk that counts 10:30 < flavour> That can be done any time 10:30 < Schuyler> * Providing data dumps to partner orgs (e.g. MapAction) 10:30 < flavour> Again, that can too 10:30 < flavour> I don't see those as black/white cases 10:30 < PierZen> If I remember, MapAction asked if somebody could help to map hospitals etc. I dont think we had to prepare an activation for that. 10:31 < Schuyler> no? a big problem in Haiti was people making requests on crisis-mappers that just went into a black hole 10:31 < Schuyler> if someone "asks" HOT for something (meaning?) I want them to get *an* answer, even if the answer is "sorry we can't do that" 10:32 < flavour> Which is different o an Activation 10:32 < PierZen> In Brazzaville, it was a quite limited area. That is a question of degree. What Activation means. Should we have different levels of Activation. 10:32 < Schuyler> does an activation *imply* commitment of scarce resources? i.e. volunteers, imagery? 10:33 < Schuyler> PierZen: I'm thinking -- yes, we should 10:33 < flavour> I think it implies just those 3 things: Tasking Server, Request for Imagery, Request for Volunteers 10:33 < Schuyler> flavour: and setting up or updating a Project Page 10:33 < flavour> No guarntee that imagery or volunteers will come 10:33 < flavour> Yes, definitel;y 10:33 < flavour> I saw that as a pre-activation requirement as per HW 10:33 < flavour> But yes, best to ensure this is in there 10:33 < Schuyler> step 0, perhaps 10:33 < flavour> Yes 10:34 < flavour> But clearly in this overall document 10:35 < Schuyler> so there are possible triggers 10:36 < Schuyler> one is a MapAction activation 10:36 < Schuyler> another is a Space Charter activation, although we should ask ourselves whether we *ever* want to do an HOT activation that isn't specifically in the service of ground response 10:37 < PierZen> OCHA and WHO request. 10:37 < flavour> Does ground response have to be International though? 10:37 < flavour> I'd def agree that a formal request from any of those 3 would count 10:38 < flavour> Maybe the International component is important - to provide a threshold 10:38 < flavour> Between 'business as usual, low scale support' & 'All hands on deck'! 10:38 < Schuyler> and finally 10:38 < Schuyler> there's local request 10:38 < Schuyler> when maning goes "oh heck my country is flooding again" 10:38 < PierZen> This needs evaluation (local request). 10:38 < flavour> Where we can still set up a Tasking server & let people know it's happening 10:38 < Schuyler> that's local OSM mappers who want to map their own region and just want community support 10:38 < Schuyler> exactly 10:38 < flavour> Yet not make it a formal 'Activation' 10:39 < Schuyler> well, or make it a "local activation" 10:39 < PierZen> what i did for richelieu river as example. 10:39 < Schuyler> exactly 10:40 < Schuyler> I think the ground response criterion is more about "let's be sure people will actually use the work of our volunteers" rather than just "mapping for the sake of mapping" 10:40 < Schuyler> if OCHA or WHO or IOM or UNHCR say "we would like OSM data of this region" then I think we can agree that's a good trigger 10:41 < PierZen> +1 10:41 < Schuyler> okay 10:41 < harry-wood> yes 10:41 < Schuyler> does anyone have any questions, comments, or concerns about what's been discussed so far? 10:41 < flavour> Sounds good/clear so far :) 10:41 < AndrewBuck> been followinfg along... 10:41 < Schuyler> I note that we have two concerns, one is activation and triggers, and the other is ensuring that inquiries aimed at HOT get a consistent and organized response 10:41 < harry-wood> I feel the need to draw a diagram 10:42 < Schuyler> harry-wood: please do :-) I would volunteer but I am not an accomplished diagrammer 10:42 < Schuyler> in the UN they call that point of contact a "focal point" 10:42 < PierZen> and described what is an organized response. 10:42 < Schuyler> yes, agreed 10:42 < AndrewBuck> just want to say, I like the idea of the three levels of activation: local request, local response, and international response. I think that helps resolve many of the issues with over/under using the hot activation by making it more appropriate to the situation on the ground. 10:42 < PierZen> Focal point, yes. 10:42 < Schuyler> so, organized response implies people being "on call" in some sense 10:43 < flavour> Volunteer Roles 10:43 < Schuyler> like, an email alias @hotosm.org that forwards to a list of people who know what to say and one of whom is guaranteed to respond in 6? 12? 24? hours 10:43 < flavour> Is that 1 PoC for all orgs or potentially 1 per Org? 10:43 < flavour> List should work well 10:43 < robert_banick> Hey all, not to interrupt, but as a response to Shuyler at 14:41, what are your feelings about incorporating requests from smaller NGOs? I'm speaking as the GIS Analyst for the American Red Cross here... 10:43 < Schuyler> flavour: that's a good question. some HOT members have specific contacts with other NGOs 10:44 < Schuyler> robert_banick: that's a good question, although I think the American Red Cross is hardly a small NGO :) 10:44 < robert_banick> haha 10:44 < flavour> robert_banick: We're trying to distinguish here between requests/support of a more informal nature & 'Activations' 10:44 < robert_banick> I mean non-UN sized NGOs 10:44 < flavour> ARC operates 24/7/365 10:44 < flavour> Which isn't an Activation 10:44 < flavour> However if we geta katrina or somethign then ARC could request an Activation for that 10:45 < robert_banick> Right. But we have a separate crisis division that springs into action for national / international responses 10:45 < Schuyler> does anyone object to making the question of answering support requests part of the remit of the Activation WG also? 10:45 < robert_banick> and they would definitely appreciate having a mechanism to reach out and, as you put it, say "We would like OSM data of this region". 10:46 < flavour> Schuyler: Gives something to do between activations ;) 10:46 < flavour> robert_banick: As I say, if there's a big event then they could make a formal request for Activation & I would imagine it being done 10:46 < Schuyler> overall I think it would be of long term benefit both to HOT and to its beneficiaries for us to be able to present a consistent, professional front to our partners 10:47 < Schuyler> when people make inquiries of HOT, they should be assured of getting a prompt response, even if the response is "sorry no" 10:47 < flavour> Would it ever be 'sorry no'? 10:47 < PierZen> yes. 10:47 < Schuyler> I think I said that earlier, sorry, it's getting late here and I've started drinking beer 10:47 < flavour> Would it not be 'We will fwd to the list to see if anyone is interested' 10:48 < robert_banick> flavour : thanks, I just wanted to be clear that non-UN sized agencies could request activations 10:48 < AndrewBuck> Schuyler: prompt response is key, even if it is no. 10:48 < flavour> vs 'We will activate' 10:48 < Schuyler> flavour: good question! 10:48 < Schuyler> ok, we are 10 minutes away from a full hour 10:48 < PierZen> about organized response, we need to develop more. 10:49 < Schuyler> we have generated some good discussion of the points to be worked on 10:49 < Schuyler> I would like us to wrap up by 15:05 UTC or so 10:50 < harry-wood> I think the idea of channelling requests/responses in any way comes with a risk that the communication is slowed down/fails 10:50 < Schuyler> are there definite tasks that can be drawn out of this discussion? and who might be willing to take them on? 10:50 < flavour> * Completing Wiki page 10:50 < Schuyler> I volunteer to take on posting a log of this chat and a summary to the main HOT mailing list for everyone else's benefit 10:50 < PierZen> On hot.openstreetmap.org, i would see a link to an activation page. There, the list of activations and tools. Lets separate it from the wiki, make it more simple for the crowd? 10:51 < Schuyler> can I ask everyone who spoke up in the meeting to send me an email so I have your real names? schuyler@nocat.net 10:52 < Schuyler> you're now part of teh working group :-) 10:52 < Schuyler> on the wiki, we need a summary of activation outcomes, or products, as we discussed here 10:52 < Schuyler> with differentiation between things that qualify as "activation" versus things that an HOT volunteer might do any old time 10:53 < Schuyler> we could also use a wiki page that outlines a protocol for responding to HOT support requests 10:53 < Schuyler> this can all be sketchy... brainstorm like 10:53 < flavour> The key there is how much we need to coordinate internally first vs giving a speedy reply 10:53 < flavour> Do we have 2 basic response templates? 10:54 < Schuyler> right now we're generating ideas -- we have plenty of time to form them up and formalize them for the rest of the org 10:54 < flavour> 'yes' & 'n, but we'll see if anyone interested' 10:54 < Schuyler> flavour: no -- would you be willing to sketch out those templates? 10:54 < flavour> We may also need a 'questionnaire' 10:54 < Schuyler> wiki would be a good place 10:54 < Schuyler> these are all good ideas 10:54 < flavour> Yes, I can draft up the bullet points 10:55 < flavour> Maybe I'll await harry-wood 's flowchart so I can fir into that 10:55 < flavour> *fit 10:55 < harry-wood> trying to crystallise something out of a blurry mess of concepts at the moment 10:57 < harry-wood> what do people think of the term "Humanitarian Mapping Project" 10:58 < harry-wood> as a name given to things which may or may not become activations 10:58 < PierZen> it is to general i think. 10:58 < harry-wood> I supposed typically they'd correspond to a disaster at one place and one time 10:59 < Schuyler> "Humanitarian Event"? 10:59 < flavour> Yes...HOT = Events 10:59 < harry-wood> but also just ongoing mapping in one place e.g. Padang 10:59 < PierZen> Humanitarian Crisis Mapping Projects? 11:01 < harry-wood> Could call them "HOT projects" but I didn't want to imply that you have to be part of HOT to be doing mapping in a particular place 11:01 < PierZen> you have to think of search tools. hot is not good to be seen. 11:01 < PierZen> You need more specific words. 11:02 < PierZen> Now, if you search Crisis mapping, HotOsm is not showed. 11:03 < Schuyler> there's a lot of things called "crisis mapping" 11:03 < PierZen> even humanitarian crisis mapping, you wont see hotosm i think. 11:05 < Schuyler> ok, my friends, we've been at it for an hour 11:05 < Schuyler> I'm happy to continue chatting, but let's schedule the next meeting and call this one closed. 11:05 < Schuyler> one week too soon? two weeks too far out? 11:05 < harry-wood> yeah. better get back to work 11:06 < Schuyler> I suggest one week. Let's try to get some momentum going. 11:06 < Schuyler> this time next week (22 Mar) work for everyone? 11:06 < PierZen> yes 11:08 < flavour> Fine for me :) 11:09 < Schuyler> great, talk to you guys then 11:09 < Schuyler> thank you all for participating 11:09 < Schuyler> please do start filling out the wiki 11:09 < harry-wood> ok. see you then! 11:09 < Schuyler> and we'll meet again at 14:00 UTC on 22 Mar 11:09 < flavour> Actually, no next week, but np (Am at CDAC) 11:10 * flavour runs 11:10 < Schuyler> flavour: ok! if you make any progress with outlining the ideas here in writing, jsut email the HOT list :)