Humanitarian OSM Team/Working groups/Activation/meeting 2013-06-26

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting on Wed 26th June 2013 to discuss HOT activation

Topics

We agreed on a number of statements. These also imply some action points, prefixed by who volunteered to work on them

1: We start an HMP for any disaster that merits mapping work, but only rise to activation for the most important ones that meet the activation criteria.

2: We agreed that other orgs using the data should be a key requirement for official activation (as opposed to just HMP).

3: We agreed that for a HMP to become an Activation, a Coordinator must be designated. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination

pierzen - 4: We should establish a set of liaisons to communicate with other organiations on a permananent basis. The liaisons should be listed on a page somewhere with contact info for the HOT side of the relationship and just general info about who they liaise with on the other side. Then the community can direct questions to the relevant liaison who can respond accordingly, or contact their counterpart.

pierzen - 5: Liasons should try to get "on the record" statements from aid organizations about how they plan to use the data in particular event responses, and should followup afterwards for feedback and promotional purposes so we can show how our data was helpful.

russdeffner, AndrewBuck - 6: We should have a template for HMPs with slots to fill in for coordinator, who will use the data, and other relevent info. Filling in some of these slots will be requirements to go to full activation.

russdeffner, AndrewBuck - 7: We should also make templates for the more 'boilerplate' stuff on an HMP page like how external groups can use our data, links to editing tutorials, templates for listing related task manager jobs or imagery layers in table format, etc.

harry-wood - 8: We should further develop the checklist of things to do when creating an HMP with a well defined priority list as well as a summary checklist to allow for an easy check that no steps were skipped.

harry-wood - 9: Initial creation of a humanitarian mapping project wiki page should be easy and quick, but we should encourage referring to the checklist.

AndrewBuck - 10: We should work to develop a monitoring system to try to identify new disasters as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.

harry-wood - 11: We should have a centralised list of current HMP's so that volunteers can easily compare events and decide where to contribute.


IRC log:

13:30 : boris_m left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
13:30 AndrewBuck: Hello all. Is the activation group meeting now?
13:30 pierzen: Hi everyone
13:30 : boris_m [boris@fb08-bohr.phys.chemie.uni-giessen.de] entered the room.
13:30 pierzen: Yes Activation WG starting
13:31 pgiraud: Salut Pierre
13:31 sev_hotosm: Hi everybody
13:32 pgiraud: j'ai re?u un message priv? de la part de sev_hotosm qui disait qu'il lui ?tait difficile d'assister au WG (enfin si j'ai bien compris)
13:33 pierzen: The Activation page has been moved to wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation
13:33 pierzen: Other participants?
13:33 skorasaurus: I'll be able to be here for a few minutes, mostly observing.
13:33 pierzen: Hi Haiti
13:33 skorasaurus: hello sev_hotosm :)
13:34 AndrewBuck: Are we ready to start then or should we wait bit more?
13:34 pierzen: let's wait a few minutes
13:34 : russdeffner [~482a667e@shenron.openstreetmap.org] entered the room.
13:35 sev_hotosm: Oops sorry yes I made a confusion with pierzen who was the good adressee
13:36 pierzen: Any other have joined in for the Activation WG?
13:36 IknowJoseph: hi all, I'm here to read what's happening, but a little too distracted for real time involvement
13:36 pierzen: Ok let's start.
13:36 russdeffner: Russell Deffner here, sorry I'm a bit late
13:38 pierzen: The Activation page describes the triggers of Activation. This is a step further in our interventions. This indicates that we give it more priority, that we need more ressources and that we need to coordinate more with other groups. Do you agree with that?
13:38 AndrewBuck: Sounds correct by my current understanding.
13:40 russdeffner: I would agree with that, and like the idea that an interested party should set up a 'humanitarian project' wiki-page wether or not it ever becomes a full-blown 'activation'
13:40 pierzen: For example, with the flooding in India this week, with more then 1,000 deads, people were asking to activate. Is this sufficient?
13:40 pierzen: russdeffner: agree
13:40 AndrewBuck: So the general timeline is, the disater happens, someone from HOT notices it, they start a 'humanitarian mapping project', they document it on a wiki page, and then if the project rises to a certain level then finally we activate. Is this a correct summary?
13:41 pierzen: yes to my point of view.
13:41 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: that seems to be the current model, does anyone not like that flow?
13:42 AndrewBuck: I would say the list of reasons to activate should include either a certain interest from the HOT community itself, or an official request from an aid organization (and maybe a couple other things).
13:42 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: The model sounds good to me.
13:42 skorasaurus: by a certain level, do you mean if there's a certain level of damage, injuries, deaths ?
13:42 AndrewBuck: skorasaurus: Not sure yet, I think that is where we are still fuzzy, when do we actually formally activate.
13:43 russdeffner: skorasaurus: I think that's where we need to make some decisions
13:43 pierzen: Again with the India case. very important, but what should be our involvement?
13:43 pierzen: I contacted the autorities to offer our help, no answer yet.
13:44 pierzen: We hardly can identify the zones to cover.
13:44 russdeffner: I'm a bit weiry waiting on 'authorities'...
13:44 skorasaurus: being a completely voluntary organization, whether or not we activite depends if we have someone (or another person) to take the lead, coordinate mapping, be the ones in touch with NGOs/humanitarian actors on the ground, etc.
13:44 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: well we start mapping even in the first phase, the activation just calls in more resources, etc.
13:44 russdeffner: in the Colorado wildfires, I am also waiting for authorities to reply, but that shouldn't stop us from mapping
13:44 skorasaurus: does the activation really call in more resources ?
13:45 skorasaurus: answering my own question, i suppose it does, by drawing attention to the incident/crisis we're mapping.
13:45 : sev_hotosm left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
13:46 pierzen: If we look at the past activations, I would say yes.
13:46 AndrewBuck: skorasaurus: I think ideally it should, I was thinking it would be good to have another mailing list, like hot-announce or something like that, that only lists activation messages and other really important ones. Then volunteer could subscibe to that on the phones, RSS readers, etc, to be called in when things get really bad.
13:46 AndrewBuck: that way you can follow the normal hot list, but get woken up, etc, if something goes to hot announce.
13:47 AndrewBuck: And only board members and the activation team, etc, should be able to publish to announce to keep the list free from extra traffic.
13:47 russdeffner: (When to Activate) I think it should be based more on if we think we can add data to the map (which is more dependent on availabillity of imagery, survey crews, etc.)
13:48 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: well that is what a humanitarian mapping project (i'm gonna call it HMP to save on typing) is.
13:48 AndrewBuck: we start an HMP as soon as we think there is a need and that means document the area, devise a plan of action, and start mapping...
13:49 skorasaurus: russdeffner: those are definitely factors.
13:49 pierzen: When we activate, we are in general in contact with other groups and can eventually ask for other imagery.
13:49 AndrewBuck: once the HMP is up and running we assess the severity and if it rises to a high level then we declare an official activation and start publicising it to try to attract more resources.
13:50 pierzen: I also see an Activation has a step were we are more in contact with NGO's on the field and ready to interact with them.
13:50 russdeffner: But, when to scale-up to Activation? are we saying that activation is more about getting resources (for remote mapping, i.e. tracing) or sending ground crews only...
13:50 skorasaurus: russdeffner: they should be in consideration (to activitation) in addition to the level of damage, fatalities,
13:50 russdeffner: or can it be a call for more armchair mappers
13:50 pierzen: remote mappers this is not a problem in general.
13:51 pierzen: This is the easiest part of interventions.
13:51 pierzen: The coordination is the challenge.
13:51 russdeffner: as an example, it's actually getting difficult to keep mappers going in regards to the wildfires...
13:52 russdeffner: some probably get bored, have other things, etc.
13:52 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: having a second level (HMP vs activation) helps with remote mappers too, because some people only like to help with the more signifigant actions.
13:52 russdeffner: but there is still a ton to map
13:52 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yes, but we have to prioritize... we have also right now a ground team in haiti, and floods in india.
13:52 russdeffner: I've gone back and forth about requesting an official activation
13:52 AndrewBuck: So we have HMP's for all three, but only activate on the truly important ones.
13:53 russdeffner: and so far, I'm coordinating as an HMP
13:53 AndrewBuck: How we define important is the tricky issue though.
13:53 AndrewBuck: It should ultimately come down to the one or two HMP's where additional resources would do the most good.
13:53 pierzen: russdeffner: The best is that you communicate more often with the Hot list, that you give follow-up.
13:53 russdeffner: yes, because (no offense) it's very important to me, because I feel a bit surrounded by fire right now
13:53 pierzen: This should bring mappers.
13:54 AndrewBuck: So it should take into account the existing state of the map data, the number of people affected, and the liklihood that our data will actually get used.
13:54 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: I also don't want to flood HOT mailing lists and seem pushy, hence setting the wiki and directing people there
13:54 : thod [~tobias@c-31-209-38-215.cust.bredband2.com] entered the room.
13:55 pierzen: Writing once a week for a situation like that should be ok. And surely communicate with the USA list.
13:55 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, this is why i think hot-announce list would be good though, so we can chat as much as we need on the list for HMP's and then only send summaries to announce.
13:55 russdeffner: *oops that was a reply to peirzen
13:56 AndrewBuck: Figuring out how the data will be used should be a key step in activation i think. I don't think there should be an official activation until we get at least some sense that the data will be used by the people affected by the event, or by responders.
13:56 russdeffner: let me direct the conversation a bit elsewhere - is this maybe also a temporary issue due to the size/capacity of HOT...
13:56 russdeffner: in the future will we have enough hotties to coordination all crisis mapping, large and small?
13:57 skorasaurus: russdeffner: I think so.
13:57 AndrewBuck: So in your fire example, we don't know that the forest service or anyone else would use the data, so it is fine to have an HMP but it shouldn't rise to activation level until we get a sense that the data will actually be used. The same goes for india.
13:57 pierzen: This is surely a problem. You see the limits. Even for Mali Activation, we had problem gathering people.
13:57 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: I agree, but choose to assume that someone will/can use it because it's OSM
13:58 skorasaurus: I think once we grow the OSM community, especially gaining more GIS professionals who could become involved without having such a steep learning curve.
13:58 skorasaurus: it will be easier to retain people.
13:58 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: I think the default assumption is good for an HMP, but for an activation I think it should be a requirement that it is _likely_ to be used, not just _could_ be used.
13:58 russdeffner: I can agree to that
13:58 AndrewBuck: After all the whole point of activating is that it should be a rare thing for only the most relevant responses.
13:59 AndrewBuck: That way people who only want to map once a month or every few months know which ones to work on.
14:00 pierzen: The way the Task Manager is setup complicates a bit the matter. All the jobs listed on the same page.
14:00 pierzen: It would be good to have pages for various projects. For example one for a specific activation.
14:00 skorasaurus: the HDMP would be more focused on mappers who are more experienced, closer to the situation on the ground ?
14:00 AndrewBuck: And the requirement of people using the data doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. If we get a very severe disaster like major earthquake killing thousands, we can activate on the assumption that teams will use the data, but in general I think we should look for an actual request/notification that the data will be used.
14:00 russdeffner: pierzen: yes, it's almost a necessity to break that up
14:00 skorasaurus: pierzen: big +1 - jaakkoh mentioned that to me.
14:01 AndrewBuck: pierzen: you can tag task manager jobs and search on tags
14:01 : sev_hotosm [~androirc@190.115.185.16] entered the room.
14:01 skorasaurus: (regarding a page for a project)
14:01 skorasaurus: there is the wiki but the wiki is obviously fulfilling that function.
14:01 pierzen: Yes, at least we can do that. But people coming directly to the TM page, cannot see easily the various projects.
14:02 AndrewBuck: So are we in agreement that other orgs using the data (or very strongly liekly to) should be one of the criteria for activation?
14:02 AndrewBuck: Want to confirm this before we move on.
14:02 skorasaurus: personally, I don't edit as much as I could, because either: i'm too busy on the ground to document everything in a concise manner, from an armchair perspective and when I'm in cleveland don't know everything that is going on and don't want to put out false info.
14:03 skorasaurus: AndrewBuck: +1 yes.
14:03 pierzen: +1
14:03 skorasaurus: i'd even go to say are using the data.
14:03 skorasaurus: not just likely to .
14:03 skorasaurus: i think using the data is a huge incentive for people to contribute.
14:03 IknowJoseph: there's not a lot of point mapping for the sake of mapping =)
14:03 AndrewBuck: skorasaurus: I put the likely to in there for stuff like the haiti earthquake, where it is almost guaranteed just not necessasartily known upfront.
14:03 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: agree, there has to be a 'usage case'
14:04 AndrewBuck: In general I think we should require it but it can be waived for _extreme_ disasters (katrina, haiti, etc).
14:05 skorasaurus: i agree.
14:05 AndrewBuck: Ok, so it sounds like we are agreed on that as a basic concept then. Just wanted to establish that so we can list it as a meeting outcome and possibly refine it in future meetings. Now back on to the next topic.  :)
14:05 russdeffner: however, let me throw this one out - what if the USFS (in theory) says they will turn to OSM for data during fires; then do we set up an 'auto-activation' or do we still activate on a per fire basis (all hypothetical)
14:06 russdeffner: I think I know the answer, just wanted to throw a wrench :)
14:06 : springmeyer [~dane@50-198-132-58-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] entered the room.
14:06 pierzen: If we establish close relations with them and they ask help right at the beginning, identify priorities, we will move more rapidly to help them.
14:07 skorasaurus: +1 ^
14:07 russdeffner: peirzen, I like that answer :)
14:07 skorasaurus: AndrewBuck: I
14:07 skorasaurus: am adding it to the wiki.
14:07 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: In your USFS example, I would say we meet that one activation requirement for all future US fires, but there will be other requirements to activate as well.
14:08 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: +1
14:09 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: we are looking at similar things with the red cross where they are committing to use our data, so if we know a red cross team will go somewhere we already have some indication the data will be used, but we still must also meet the other requirements like size of sdisaster, our ability to respond, lack of current map data, etc.
14:09 pierzen: It is not necessarily an activation. But even for a simple intervention, if we move quicky with clear objectives, it will be easier to have mappers.
14:09 AndrewBuck: pierzen: yes for sure. Even for an HMP we should come up with a priority list and instructions, etc.
14:10 pierzen: The question of coordination is crucial. This cannot be improvized all the time. We should try to establish permanent relations with groups like Red Cross and have liaison contacts.
14:10 AndrewBuck: I think an HMP will really be most of the process, the 'activation' is more just the announcement of a particular HMP that should get extra attention, but the setup should already be done as an HMP.
14:11 AndrewBuck: pierzen: +1 on liaisons with aid orgs, also to skorasaurus point before we should have liaisons with the ground teams as well.
14:11 AndrewBuck: That solves the poblem of ground teams haing no time to write wiki pages, but remote mappers not knowing the situation on the ground.
14:12 pierzen: This would be easier to do with a Support Activation Team taking care of these aspects.
14:12 russdeffner: all these points are great, and I agee - sorry if I got us stuck on topic
14:12 pierzen: We experienced using a Support Team for Mali and this was a great experience.
14:12 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: no problem. You have been doing great work on the fires so I understand your interest in that.
14:12 russdeffner: but liaisons are a great idea
14:13 russdeffner: and support teams (or one Hotty for support type stuff)
14:13 AndrewBuck: the liaisons not only help us coordinate but they give us a better image to aid orgs, we are not just a loose bunch of volunteers, but we actually have some organization and structure that they can easily interact with.
14:14 pierzen: +1
14:15 AndrewBuck: I was thinking for liaisons too, that we should have something like 6 of them. 2 each from each '8 hour time zone'. So two from the Americas, 2 from Europe/Africa, and 2 from Asia/Austrailia. This way there is always lijkely someone awake to respond immediately.
14:16 AndrewBuck: There should be some kind of e-mail list or alias that sends a message to all the currently nominated liaisons and then the first one to respond handles that particular issue.
14:16 russdeffner: Maybe we could create a pool of 'Activation Coordinators' and however many activations each coordinator thinks they can manage, that's our capacity? May be harder to organize then I'm imagining
14:17 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: alternatively, people could volunteer to coordinate on a per incident basis.
14:17 AndrewBuck: So you could volunteer to coordinate the current US fires, etc.
14:18 russdeffner: but, to achieve some kind of consistancy; maybe they should have to do some kind of training, or be on the AWG
14:18 AndrewBuck: that way the coordinator is more in tune with the disaster since they chose to work on that. I like your 'pool' idea though to have some trained people to take the disasters no one volunteers ffor but still should be activated.
14:18 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, sounds like we agree then.
14:19 pierzen: The Support Activation Team is for me a group that works on the long term, develop contacts, establishes workflows for activation. If we need to collaborate with humanitarians on the field, we need some material and tutorials to address these questions.
14:19 russdeffner: +1
14:19 AndrewBuck: Either have some training beforehand or maybe have a 'mentor' that helps them get started and then hands off to them when ready, so they 'train on the job'.
14:19 russdeffner: I think we may be creating some addition work, but if the AWG can come up with some templates, etc. I think we can tackle this
14:20 AndrewBuck: I think this is important since often there will be people who want to coordinate an activation but they wont be trained previously.
14:20 russdeffner: that's pretty much how Harry Wood helped me get going with the fires - it worked... so far
14:21 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, exactly. And you picked up that responsibility since you were interested in the fires which makes you a good person to be the coordinator on that one.
14:21 russdeffner: +1
14:21 AndrewBuck: So we should be able to train you in coordinator 'tactics' and then hand off to you when you are ready.
14:21 russdeffner: BrB
14:21 AndrewBuck: Basically you become the coordinator right away but you have a co-coordinator until you are ready to work on your own.
14:22 AndrewBuck: Do others agree on this coordinator idea? I think that could be a second criteria to an official activation.
14:24 harry-wood: hello everyone. oopse. should've set a reminder about this.
14:24 harry-wood: reads back
14:25 AndrewBuck: So what do people think about adding this as another meeting outcome:
14:25 AndrewBuck: We agreed that each activation should have an activation coordinator assigned at or before the activation officially starts who oversees the operations of that activation. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination.
14:26 russdeffner: agree
14:26 pierzen: +1
14:27 AndrewBuck: sounds like we are (likely) in agreement on that then.
14:27 AndrewBuck: I will recap these outcomes at the end of the meeting as a final double check (I am putting them on a notepad for now).
14:27 skorasaurus: AndrewBuck: great.
14:27 skorasaurus: assigned isn't a great word.
14:28 AndrewBuck: designated?
14:28 skorasaurus: that sounds better.
14:28 AndrewBuck: changed.
14:28 russdeffner: maybe a quick list of coordinator 'responsibilities' (volunteer - of course) would help
14:29 skorasaurus: and we need to stress that we're willing and eager to accept people who aren't experienced coordinators.
14:29 russdeffner: i.e. maintain wiki-page
14:29 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, we would have to flesh out what being a coordinator actually entails.
14:29 AndrewBuck: skorasaurus: for sure. That is why I think the mentoring is key, so people can volunteer to lead on their project of interest.
14:30 AndrewBuck: russdeffner is not the first to come to the list with something like this that they are interested in, we have had a few of those.
14:30 : FredB [~makina@91-224-149-44.tetaneutral.net] entered the room.
14:30 pierzen: For some Activations involving official Agencies, we need to select experienced people that have the capacity to deal with these organisations.
14:31 pierzen: We have to show some professionnalism to progress with these organisations.
14:31 AndrewBuck: pierzen: that would be the liaisons. They would work with the coordinator and community on our side, and the ords on the other side.
14:31 AndrewBuck: I think the liaisons should be more permananent than the event coordinators.
14:31 russdeffner: I was just going there, is this a liaison or coordinator thing?
14:32 russdeffner: so, I read coordinator - talks with OSM/HOT community(s); liaison - talks with partners
14:32 AndrewBuck: I would say that the coordinator is more like a 'general' to use the military term. They are overseeing the operation and setting priorities, but other people actually gather info, do the mapping, talk to aid orgs, etc.
14:32 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah exactly.
14:33 AndrewBuck: And of course the coordinator/liaison might be the same person sometimes.
14:33 pierzen: For me the coordinator is in charge of the activation and takes care of liaisons with other organisations involved. But he can be supported by liaisons (this would be the more permanent support activation team).
14:33 AndrewBuck: I expect there will be some overlap which I think is fine, but if one person does two tasks they should be listed as both of those things.
14:34 AndrewBuck: pierzen: yeah, that is exactly like I thought.
14:34 russdeffner: So, maybe the HMP 'template' should have a place for those people and their contact info?
14:34 AndrewBuck: So we would have, for example, a UN liaison, who talks to the UN always and they will relay that info to the appropriate event coordinators.
14:34 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: +1
14:35 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: I would say the HMP template should have a coordinator slot which will be empty for most of them, but some will get one filled in and then this meets one of the reqs for an activation.
14:36 AndrewBuck: another slot should be for who will use the map data created and again, filling in this slot will meet a req.
14:36 : wwwolf [~sitesoley@200.113.200.116] entered the room.
14:36 skorasaurus: ^ +1
14:36 pierzen: And we should have a place where we document the various contacts HOT <-> Outside organisations
14:37 AndrewBuck: pierzen: yeah, definitely, but that is not on a per-activation basis, more of an ongoing thing. But I agree.
14:37 pierzen: yes
14:37 skorasaurus: especially since the contacts can change.
14:37 russdeffner: Maybe the main HOT website (or wiki) could have a Partner liaison list (showing both who we partner with, and who our liaison for that partner is)
14:38 skorasaurus: russdeffner:
14:38 pierzen: No, this should not be public
14:38 skorasaurus: I think it could be a least a list of what agencies we partner with.
14:38 russdeffner: pierzen: why? I'm sure you have a reason, but I'm not there
14:38 skorasaurus: that would be public.
14:38 AndrewBuck: pierzen: I think it should be public that person A liaisons with org B, but not the contents of their communication.
14:39 pierzen: My Liaison at Ocha xxx country would not like to be on a public list, I am sure.
14:39 AndrewBuck: pierzen: at least for the more established liaison relationships.
14:40 harry-wood: Are we talking about organisations that are interested in using our data ?
14:40 russdeffner: I would say we put the HOT-ty on there, not the partner org. info
14:40 pierzen: an
14:40 AndrewBuck: pierzen: in your Ocha example we could just state that such a person on our side liaises with ocha, but not the details of the actual field reps on the ocha side.
14:40 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: talking about setting up liaisaons to be official contact points in HOT from other orgs.
14:40 pierzen: harry-wood: yes, or indirectly, like ocha in the various activaions
14:41 pierzen: activations!
14:41 AndrewBuck: pierzen: the reason for making the liaisons public (at least our side of the pair) is so our community can interact with them.
14:41 AndrewBuck: So for example we should know that you have a contact with Ocha in country xxx but not necessarily the details of that.
14:42 AndrewBuck: That way we know you are the person to direct questions to, etc, and you will either answer them yourself or forward them to your contact.
14:42 skorasaurus: bingo.
14:42 AndrewBuck: So some contacts will be listed on both sides, some only on the HOT side but a general description of who they know (not specifics).
14:42 pierzen: A liaison contact is not for everybody to contact them. This is a priviledged channel. If too many people contact them, then they will loose confidence in establishing liaison with you.
14:43 AndrewBuck: The communication directly with the liaison are priveledged but then some information gets shared with the larger community once it is cleared by your contact.
14:43 : jaakkoh [~jaakkoh@200.113.200.116] entered the room.
14:44 AndrewBuck: pierzen: And the community will not contact the person at the other side of the relationship themselves, they contact the liaison on the HOT side who may or may not forward the question to their contact.
14:45 AndrewBuck: So as a hypothetical...
14:45 pierzen: AndrewBuck: agree
14:46 AndrewBuck: We make a page that lists liasons, one entry is that pierzen (listed with e-mail, skype, etc) liaises with a Ocha representative in country xxx (with no contact details listed).
14:46 AndrewBuck: That way if the HOT community has a question about Country xxx or about the OCHA team their they ask you, and then you act accordingly.
14:47 AndrewBuck: ok, so it sounds like we are coming into agreement on this then.
14:48 pierzen: Other subjects ?
14:49 AndrewBuck: lets try to approve this before moving on...
14:49 AndrewBuck: do you all agree on this statement?
14:49 : ian29 [~ian29@50-198-132-58-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] entered the room.
14:49 AndrewBuck: We should establish a set of liaisons to communicate with other aid organiations on a permananent basis. The liaisons should be listed on a page somewhere with contact info for the HOT side of the relationship and just general info about who they liaise with on the other side. Then the community can direct questions to the relevant liaison who can respond accordingly, or contact their counterpar
14:49 AndrewBuck: t.
14:50 harry-wood: I think there's a lot more we should be doing in terms of putting out general info to any interested organisation, on how they might use our data
14:51 harry-wood: In the past we've had a separate section of the wiki page explaining some usage stuff per disaster
14:51 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: for sure. Can we decide on that statement I posted before moving on to that though?
14:51 AndrewBuck: Does everyone agree to have the liasons thing added to the meeting outcomes?
14:51 skorasaurus: yes.
14:51 russdeffner: yep
14:51 harry-wood: Yeah if the organisations want it, it's a good idea
14:51 : MonkZ left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
14:52 pierzen: +1
14:52 AndrewBuck: ok, cool. I'll mark it official, and then we can move on.
14:52 AndrewBuck: Sorry to be a stickler but we always have these meetings and then it is hard to move on later since we never "officially" stamp stuff as agreed so it just keeps getting rehashed in future meetings, etc.
14:53 AndrewBuck: So next... harry-wood's statement about helping orgs use our data.
14:53 russdeffner: +1 AndrewBuck: documentation, it's a pain, but necessary ;)
14:53 russdeffner: first, is that an Activation thing?
14:54 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: harry's statement?
14:54 AndrewBuck: I think this would be just in general.
14:54 harry-wood: my point is I think some organisations might not really get as far as being interested in establishing a liason
14:54 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: and that is fine for them. We work with a lot of groups, some very often andd some are just a one off.
14:54 russdeffner: agree, just want to make sure we aren't talking/deciding things that are better for the larger HOT community
14:55 pierzen: This could be the various parts of an Intervention / Activation
14:55 pierzen: - Remote Mapping
14:55 : sev_hotosm left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).
14:55 pierzen: - People on the field, what they can do to complete info, etc.
14:55 : sev_hotosm [~androirc@190.115.185.16] entered the room.
14:55 harry-wood: well there's a need for better documentation for sure. That's a massive thing outside of activation scope or even HOT scope
14:55 AndrewBuck: We would only have liaisons with the most frequently allied ones. I also think liaisons for our own ground teams are good. For example we should have a Cap103 liaison who is _not_ one of the people actually in Haiti, but someone that contacts them on a regular basis.
14:56 harry-wood: what I'm wondering is whether our HOT crisis mapping projects should have info about usage tacked on
14:56 russdeffner: harry-wood: ah, good question
14:56 harry-wood: in the past they have. but it's a kind of repetitive so maybe some wiki templates would be good for that
14:57 harry-wood: then again usage varies depending on what data we're offering
14:57 russdeffner: we do have to be careful not to talk a bunch about an organization using our data, and scare them away
14:57 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: not sure I follow what you mean? Are you asking about listing on a particular HMP page how the data collected will be used, or how it was used in past projects?
14:57 skorasaurus: AndrewBuck: that's what I'd hope.
14:57 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: we won't list them publicly without their OK first.
14:58 harry-wood: See this page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2013_Lushan_earthquake
14:58 harry-wood: I didn't make a section on using the data for the india one
14:58 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: so this may be an issue for liaison/coordinator collaboration
14:58 harry-wood: we should probably do that each time
14:58 : sev_hotosm left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
14:59 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: oh, you mean instructions for how to use the data collected.
14:59 : sev_hotosm [~Severin@200.113.200.116] entered the room.
14:59 AndrewBuck: That is an interesting idea. I would think best would be to make one page somewehre and then link to it from the individual HMP/Activation pages.
14:59 russdeffner: oh, now I see that page - I like the idea of linking to a 'template' from each HMP wiki
15:00 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: +1 on a template for HMP pages.
15:00 harry-wood: I'm not so keep on templates for information about how to map
15:01 harry-wood: we don't want to always put out tedious boiler plate info with no real content
15:01 AndrewBuck: something that lists the area of interest, what the disatser type is (fire, earthquake, flood, etc), and a few other basic facts like who is coordinating that one, who has already asked us for data for that area, etc.
15:01 russdeffner: but for partners/new mappers it may be helpful to have a 'here is what OSM is and how to use it'
15:01 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: The template should be about the "facts" specific to the HMP, not boilerplate stuff.
15:02 harry-wood: yeah. I think the data using info is more repetitive so better for templates
15:02 russdeffner: +1 to a template just for a general how to use OSM for response/humanitarian orgs.
15:03 AndrewBuck: ok, I think we are using cross defnitions of what we mean by template. I mean it more in an infobox sense like the one on this page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France
15:03 AndrewBuck: The template is the green box on the right.
15:04 AndrewBuck: So we could make something like that for a quick overview of what the HMP is about, a map of the affected area, who is coordinating it, etc.
15:04 harry-wood: yeah that's what I was meaning too. green box about using our data each time
15:04 AndrewBuck: The kind of template harry-wood is talking about is one without parameters, and that could either be done as a template or a link and I think either would be fine.
15:04 AndrewBuck: I think both things should probably be created.
15:05 russdeffner: I would be happy with either/both
15:05 pierzen: Would we list things like Exports possibilities, tools to use Base layer (Crowdmap, etc.) ?
15:05 russdeffner: peirzen: +1
15:05 harry-wood: maybe but there's general pages we can link to from it too
15:06 AndrewBuck: ok, so here is a statement for the first one, do we all approve? (I will create a statement for the boilerplate one harry described as well...
15:06 AndrewBuck: We should have a template for HMPs with slots to fill in for coordinator, who will use the data, and other relevent info. Filling in some of these slots will be requirements to go to full activation.
15:06 russdeffner: agree
15:07 harry-wood: "template with slots" or just a "ticklist of info the wiki page should have"
15:07 AndrewBuck: well, by slots I mean paramters like on the one on the France page I linked above.
15:08 pierzen: For full Activation, I think that it should be the responsability of the Support Activation Team to designate the Coordinator.
15:08 AndrewBuck: so a field for who coordinates, a field for the bounding box, etc.
15:08 harry-wood: yeah the thing is I'm keen to avoid the boilerplate problem
15:08 harry-wood: new crisis happens the same old wiki template is slapped on a new wiki page
15:08 harry-wood: everyone ignores it
15:09 russdeffner: I would prefer something to copy/paste/fill-in the blanks that gives a consistant 'feel' to an HMP, and maybe colors, etc. could be changed for Activations
15:09 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: I see your concern. I think the key thing to keep that from happening is the expectation that the template gets filled in with the relevant info.
15:09 russdeffner: but I also understand the ignore-it part
15:09 AndrewBuck: That way all the HMP pages have the same layout, even though the content is different.
15:09 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: +1
15:09 pierzen: =1
15:10 pierzen: +
15:10 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: infobox is a better word than template for the thing I am describing.
15:11 harry-wood: I think it would work better as a ticklist. It could literally appear as a ticklist on the page. We've done this this and this, tick tick tick. We haven't yet done these things. Therefore we are at the "early assessment" phase
15:12 harry-wood: recognising as well, that we don't necessarily NEED to progress beyond an early phase for some less interesting disasters
15:12 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah, that is basically what we are describing, just using a template with a parameter for the response to each question or relevent piece of info to give a consistent look/feel to the HMP pages.
15:12 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yes to your second point, it would be expected that for many HMP's a lot of fields would be left blank at the beginning.
15:13 AndrewBuck: They may get filled in later (like the task coordinator) if the HMP progresses towards activation status.
15:14 AndrewBuck: I think going from HMP to activation should be sort of a contiuum. You start a page with almost nothing and start documenting, as you fill in more bits and if the situation contiues to worsen, then eventually it gets nominated for an activation decision and then may or may not get the final stamp of activation.
15:14 pierzen: +1
15:15 harry-wood: yes. It's right to think of it as a continuum
15:15 harry-wood: and one which we drop of from at any stage
15:15 AndrewBuck: ok, so I think we are in agreement on what we want then regarding the infobox/checklist, we are just quibbling over the exact implementation, but the basic idea is agreed on I think.
15:16 harry-wood: yes
15:16 pierzen: yes
15:16 AndrewBuck: So should we agree officially on this statement...
15:16 AndrewBuck: We should have a template for HMPs with slots to fill in for coordinator, who will use the data, and other relevent info. Filling in some of these slots will be requirements to go to full activation.
15:16 harry-wood: yeah
15:16 russdeffner: yes, and I would add that maybe we clarify that using the template/info box as is - is not a requirement (but maybe some minimum info is required)
15:17 AndrewBuck: ok, I will mark it as another 'meeting outcome then.
15:17 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, I think it should be a commonly used thing but for many small activations there will be a lot of things left blank.
15:18 : MonkZ [~monkz@eduroam-pool3-365.wlan.uni-bremen.de] entered the room.
15:18 harry-wood: I think we could actually lay out set of info requirements (a ticklist I would call it) in a recommended order of priority.
15:18 russdeffner: and if someone wants to go fancier, etc. we shouldn't hold them back
15:18 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: +1
15:18 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: I agree a priority list would be good, so what do you do first, find imagery, or create a wiki page, etc.
15:18 pierzen: The coordinator filed can be left blank, Often, at the first stages, there is none, various HOT collaborate.
15:19 pierzen: (field)
15:19 harry-wood: in fact I already stated a few such ideas on the activation page.
15:19 AndrewBuck: pierzen: Yeah, that is exactly what I expected.
15:19 harry-wood: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation#Start_a_wiki_page
15:19 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah, you have a decent list going there.
15:19 harry-wood: three (hopefully very easy) things you should do when you start a wiki page
15:20 harry-wood: I very deliberately linked to this when I did the North India wiki page. Start drumming it into people, that we work through a set of things
15:21 russdeffner: thanks for that harry-wood - I have referred to it a few times
15:21 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah I agree there should be a predefined procedure.
15:21 harry-wood: but it also shows that, starting the wiki page can be done by anyone in a few minutes
15:21 harry-wood: it's not like you're volunteering to coordinate something for the next 12 hours or something
15:21 AndrewBuck: I think you defnitely have a good start but there is a lot missing. Also, once we get a full procedure list there should be a short 'checklist' to summarize the procedure so you can quickly check you didn't skip anything without reading a whole giant wiki page.
15:23 pierzen: Yes a good wiki page. One thing we should insist. What people can do from this data :
15:23 pierzen: - Complete the map with local knowledge
15:23 pierzen: - Export for spatial analysis
15:23 pierzen: - Create a Crisis Map (ie. Crowdmap)
15:23 pierzen: - etc.
15:23 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: What would you say for a 'action item' kind of statement about this list to be added to the meeting outcomes list I am preparing?
15:23 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: just a 1 or 2 sentance summary of what you think needs to be done.
15:24 harry-wood: Well it's following on from the one we said before
15:26 AndrewBuck: How about this for a statement:
15:26 AndrewBuck: We should further develop the checklist of things to do when creating an HMP with a well defined priority list as well as a summary checklist to allow for an easy check that no steps were skipped.
15:26 harry-wood: yes
15:26 AndrewBuck: Does everyone agree to that wording?
15:27 pierzen: yes
15:27 harry-wood: do we also agree "Initial creation of a humanitarian mapping project wiki page should be easy and quick, but we should encourage referring to the checklist"
15:27 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: I agree to that.
15:28 pierzen: +1
15:28 AndrewBuck: if others agree I will add it to the list.
15:28 AndrewBuck: ok. MArking both of those as agreed then.
15:29 AndrewBuck: Here is one more statement that slipped through the cracks before on the subject of page layout (agree/disagree):
15:29 AndrewBuck: We should also make templates for the more 'boilerplate' stuff on an HMP page like how external groups can use our data, links to editing tutorials, templates for listing related task manager jobs or imagery layers in table format, etc.
15:29 harry-wood: yeah
15:30 pierzen: use our data, improve it with local knowledge...
15:30 AndrewBuck: pierzen: I think that is implied.
15:30 russdeffner: agree to both previous statments...
15:31 AndrewBuck: pierzen: I am tryioing to keep them as short as possible.
15:31 pierzen: But I like to insist on the responsabiliities of people on the field.
15:31 russdeffner: distracted right now, radio traffic - can't tell if they're talking about a new or previous small fire in my area
15:31 russdeffner: that's how it's been for me the last week
15:32 AndrewBuck: All of these statements we are approving will the fully detailed out in future meetings or work in 'non-meeting time'. This is just to get a list of 'action items' and things to work on before the next meeting.
15:32 russdeffner: or two
15:32 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: sounds pretty hairy.
15:33 AndrewBuck: So do we have any other things to discuss at the moment.
15:33 AndrewBuck: Oh, I have one...
15:33 pierzen: out of the hat !
15:33 AndrewBuck: I was playing around with the idea of monitoring for disasters to improve our response time. I asked about aggregating RSS feeds, etc, on the #osm channel and ToeBee pointed me to Yahoo Pipes...
15:34 pierzen: url?
15:34 AndrewBuck: Here is an example pipe I made as a prooof of concept. It lists major earthwaukes in the last 30 days from USGS as well as any items from the BBC news feed that have a keyword like earthquake, flood, etc in them.
15:34 harry-wood: yeah yahoo pipes is one way of doing weird crossover blendings of RSS feeds
15:34 AndrewBuck: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=b46e74a89e2137f26cd356ebd47bd74c
15:35 : hjart left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
15:35 russdeffner: I have a 'side-note' - coordinators should be careful to not sound "this is what you need to do"; I've been careful to say "this is a suggested list of priority", etc.
15:35 AndrewBuck: The last stage in the pipe is to feed them through yahoo's geocoder which tries to put each item on the map. It figures out how to put the earthquakes on there but didn't catch 'haiti' in the one other story from the BBC.
15:36 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: +1
15:36 pierzen: +1
15:36 AndrewBuck: On that pipe page too, make sure you note that the default is the map view but the 'list' view is useful as well.
15:37 harry-wood: mostly showing the USGS earthquakes at the moment
15:37 russdeffner: (continued) I have actually had to 'adjust' another wiki contributors wording to make it less 'demanding'
15:37 AndrewBuck: What do you all think about creating such a monitoring system for the HOT page. Either based on Yahoo pipes, or something we build ourselves?
15:37 russdeffner: That would be great (monitoring system)!
15:38 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah, the BBC filtering didn't work as well as I liked, I just am learning it though I think it will improve as I understand the ssystem better.
15:38 AndrewBuck: I also need to work out the sorting on the feed, it should probably be by 'importance' rather than just by time.
15:39 harry-wood: prioritising different levels of disaster is a challenge
15:39 AndrewBuck: if you click 'edit source' or click the picture in the bottom left, you can actually see the design of the pipe and 'fork' it to modify your own.
15:40 pierzen: The importance is a major criteria. But not easy to automate this. Where would you catch the India flooding ?
15:40 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah, prioritising is tricky. And maybe just by time is the best. I thought maybe some kind of a points system though. Sort mostly by time so old stories start with low points. Add more points for keywords like 'dead' and 'injured', etc.
15:41 harry-wood: To be honest I feel like we've struggled to get that right this past week. The colorado wildfires... death toll 2 people... attracted a fair bit of mailing list attention even while everyone was ignoring the initial reports of india floods with hundreds of deaths
15:41 AndrewBuck: you can actually do regular expression filering and things like if-statements and whatnot in the pipe program.
15:41 pierzen: 'displaced', 'shelters'
15:41 AndrewBuck: pierzen: yeah exactly. I had hoped to monitor twitter for such kinds of things as well.
15:42 harry-wood: I only took 5 mins to create the India flood wiki page to try to redress that balance.
15:42 russdeffner: harry-wood: I agree, and some of that may just have been my 'over' dramatizing email(s)
15:42 AndrewBuck: The idea for this page is not to determine our priorities, just to lower the response time so we find out about these things sooner and can start making the wiki page, etc, right away.
15:42 harry-wood: Mikel and others then failed to pick up on my previous post, which is another thing which went wrong
15:43 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: ultimately I think we will always struggle with that to some extent. Some disasters just attract more interest than others.
15:43 russdeffner: it's almost more of a 'how to message' things, rather than any failure on the part of anyone
15:43 AndrewBuck: Haiti got a huge response, the pakistan floods got almost nothing, but pakistan was a bigger disaster.
15:44 AndrewBuck: A big part of it is media coverage. More coverage means more mappers.
15:44 pierzen: Media treatment is a key factor. Every time there were news about battle in Mali, people came to map. This last a few days every time.
15:45 AndrewBuck: One thing that might help too, is that currently we have no place to go to see a list of all the activations/hmp's ongooing at the moment...
15:45 russdeffner: I can almost see a direct correlation, as fire coverage decreases, less people are mapping - although we still have one threatening two fairly populated towns
15:45 : FFes left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
15:45 AndrewBuck: If mappers could see a 'summary' page with all the hmp's listed then they could assess the importance and work on what they think needs it.
15:46 pierzen: russdeffner: part of the problem, we do not give enough feedback and show how useful this is. But this is often hard to do. We do not receive much feedback ourselves.
15:47 russdeffner: Direct outreach may still be necessary - I have been contemplating another mailing list call as the 'areas of concern' are not being mapped as quickly/completely as I'd like to see (but also may be a personal thing, and not relevant to the overall situation)
15:48 AndrewBuck: yes, the feedback is important and that is why I listed getting statements about who will use the data as a step for activation. This way, later on, we can show how our response helped when asking for help in the future.
15:48 russdeffner: +1
15:48 pierzen: The liaison is a key factor for this.
15:49 AndrewBuck: pierzen: defnitely.
15:49 : sev_hotosm left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
15:50 AndrewBuck: And we need to get "on the record" statements from aid orgs we work with about how they plan to use the data in a particular event and then followup afterwards to confirm if it was useful and what feedback they have. This should be a key job of the liaisons.
15:50 pierzen: Yes
15:52 AndrewBuck: So how about this statement for approval:
15:52 AndrewBuck: Liasons should try to get "on the record" statements from aid organizations about how they plan to use the data in particular event responses, and should followup afterwards for feedback and promotional purposes so we can show how our data was helpful.
15:52 russdeffner: another side-note, the coordinator may need to liais with new groups until a more formal relationship is established
15:53 russdeffner: but agree generally
15:53 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah, they can be a sort of informal liaison, but hopefully we will have official liaisons with most of the groups we work with.
15:53 russdeffner: (continue) and we should maybe set some guidelines of how to move that process forward
15:53 AndrewBuck: Since the liaisons are a permanent thing they will accumulate over time.
15:53 pierzen: At the beginning I would add :define the zones to cover, determine if new imagery is needed.
15:54 AndrewBuck: pierzen: are you talking about on the checklist?
15:54 pierzen: AndrewBuck: your sentence about liaisons should try ...
15:55 fredM: Sorry to jump so late, for the feedback perhaps a questionnaire could help about the use of the data. For exemple for syria activation OCHA ask Immap guy to make an evaluation about the use of OSM data.
15:55 pierzen: fredM: the guy from cap103?
15:55 AndrewBuck: fredM: That is a good idea for the liaisons to work out when we get to that point.
15:56 pierzen: Fredm: did we received good feedback?
15:56 fredM: yes. IMMAP sent a short feedback to OCHA washigton, could be useful to send a questionnaire before and talk to them
15:56 AndrewBuck: pierzen: about adding your statement to the approve/dissaprove I think that is somewhat of a separate thing. We could add it as another item but I want to keep each individual item focused to a specific thing.
15:57 pierzen: ok
15:57 AndrewBuck: FredB: What activation is this IMMAP thing about? Mali, haiti, or somewhere else?
15:58 FredB: AndrewBuck: message for fredM I guess
15:58 fredM: syria activation it was just an example
15:58 AndrewBuck: also, is there any other dissagreement about the statement I proposed?
15:58 AndrewBuck: fredM: yeah that was meant for you.
15:59 AndrewBuck: fredM: That could be a good test run of the feedback system then. It sounds like you have some contacts there, would you be able to ask them for that feedback to see how it goes?
15:59 harry-wood: Question on the liason idea
15:59 harry-wood: liason per external org... or per disaster... or per org,disaster
16:00 fredM: ok I will do and come to you no problem
16:00 AndrewBuck: per external org on a permanent basis, not per disaster.
16:00 pierzen: yes
16:00 harry-wood: ok
16:00 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: and we will make a page somewhere to list all the liasons with contact info listed publicly for the HOT side of the pair.
16:01 harry-wood: So this isn't somebody nominated to be in charge of overseeing a particular disaster response
16:01 pierzen: no
16:01 harry-wood: because that might be useful too
16:01 AndrewBuck: That way anyone in the community can direct a question to the liaison and the will answer it or forward it to their counterpart, but the counterpart will be 'protected' from being bombarded by questions from the community.
16:01 harry-wood: if only we had infinite volunteers
16:02 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: the particular response is a response coordinator, it is one of the things discussed earlier.
16:02 russdeffner: to re-cap - coordinator(s) for incidents, liaisons for partner orgs.
16:02 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: this is on my approvals list already approved...
16:02 AndrewBuck: 3: We agreed that each activation should have an activation coordinator designated at or before the activation officially starts who oversees the operations of that activation. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination.
16:03 AndrewBuck: See, this is why approving the items as we go along is a good idea.  :)
16:03 harry-wood: OK. so that's certainly a concrete thing that activation involves hey?
16:03 harry-wood: hehe indeed
16:04 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah. When it starts as an HMP it will likely be blank, but someone should step up before it goes to official activation.
16:04 harry-wood: It's good and makes sense, although I imagine we'll get some disasters where everyone will say "coordinator? me? no no I was just chipping in. Don't have time to be a coordinator"
16:04 harry-wood: or maybe that's just what I would say :-)
16:05 pierzen: AndrewBuck: 3: definition : Agree
16:05 AndrewBuck: This way people can volunteer to coordinate on a project they are interested in seeing move forward, and that brings that project one step closer to official activation since there is some indication of interest.
16:05 AndrewBuck: pierzen: we already agreed to that one, I was just recapping for harry.  :)
16:05 harry-wood: yup. makes sense
16:05 pierzen: oh!
16:05 AndrewBuck: There are a couple more still to approve before we disband though.
16:06 AndrewBuck: Do we have other things to discuss or should we approve the final points and then I will post the final list and we can see what to do going forward.
16:07 pierzen: after 2h30, I suggest that we go to final points.
16:07 harry-wood: approve the final points. What are these final points?
16:07 AndrewBuck: ok first one....
16:07 AndrewBuck: Liasons should try to get "on the record" statements from aid organizations about how they plan to use the data in particular event responses, and should followup afterwards for feedback and promotional purposes so we can show how our data was helpful.
16:08 AndrewBuck: I got one approve and then a 'maybe' from pierzen on that one.
16:08 AndrewBuck: I approve.
16:08 pierzen: approve
16:08 AndrewBuck: I think we are good on that one then.
16:09 AndrewBuck: Next one:
16:09 AndrewBuck: We should develop a 'situational awareness' monitoring system to try to identify new threats as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.
16:09 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: russdeffner: fredM: pierzen: ^^^
16:10 pierzen: threats??
16:10 harry-wood: New disasters
16:10 AndrewBuck: hmm, events maybe?
16:10 russdeffner: I agree, but think it may be longer term
16:10 pierzen: I prefer
16:11 harry-wood: It think it may be a wild goose chase, but we can try :-)
16:11 russdeffner: maybe "we should work to develop..."
16:11 AndrewBuck: what word to sub in for threats then?
16:11 pierzen: disasters
16:11 russdeffner: may not ever/for a long time/ be the ideal solution
16:11 AndrewBuck: Ok, so this then...
16:12 AndrewBuck: We should work to develop a 'situational awareness' monitoring system to try to identify new disasters as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.
16:12 russdeffner: agree
16:12 pierzen: agree
16:12 harry-wood: Also I tend to use "situational awareness" to mean... helping people understand their situation amid the chaos on the ground
16:12 AndrewBuck: yeah, I meant "the whole world situation" so all the things that are current basically.
16:12 russdeffner: agree with Harry, maybe ditch the S.A.
16:12 AndrewBuck: How should I reword it then?
16:13 AndrewBuck: just nix those two words?
16:13 pierzen: yep
16:13 AndrewBuck: ok
16:13 AndrewBuck: We should work to develop a monitoring system to try to identify new disasters as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.
16:13 harry-wood: early disaster event detection
16:13 russdeffner: I think the last wording is good
16:13 pierzen: yes
16:13 harry-wood: yes
16:13 fredM: PS don't forget to register on http://www.gdacs.org and receive alert on you phone
16:13 AndrewBuck: ok, approved then.
16:14 AndrewBuck: And here is the last one for approval...
16:14 AndrewBuck: We should have a centralised list of current HMP's so that volunteers can easily compare events and decide where to contribute.
16:14 russdeffner: agree
16:14 harry-wood: agree
16:14 russdeffner: maybe with a separate or highlighted section for Activations
16:15 harry-wood: I have some implementation ideas for this one
16:15 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: yeah that is kind of implied.
16:15 russdeffner: just clarifying
16:15 pierzen: agree. And it would be good to have a Section on the hot.openstreetmap.org
16:15 AndrewBuck: All of these are just "bullet points" the actual details will be worked out later. This is just to have a summary so we remember the things we want to work on going forward.
16:16 AndrewBuck: so this one is approved then. I will mark it if no one objects.
16:16 AndrewBuck: ok. That is all the unnaproved ones.
16:16 AndrewBuck: Should I post the full list for final discussion and to divvy up who works on what, etc?
16:17 harry-wood: post where? mailing list?
16:17 AndrewBuck: here.
16:17 AndrewBuck: And I figure whenwe post the chat log we will post it at the top of the page as a summary.
16:17 harry-wood: oh I see
16:18 AndrewBuck: Sort of like approving the 'minutes' before we adjourn.
16:18 harry-wood: ok
16:18 AndrewBuck: Meeting outcomes:
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 1: We start an HMP for any disaster that merits mapping work, but only rise to activation for the most important ones that meet the activation criteria.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 2: We agreed that other orgs using the data should be a key requirement for official activation (as opposed to just HMP).
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 3: We agreed that each activation should have an activation coordinator designated at or before the activation officially starts who oversees the operations of that activation. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 4: We should establish a set of liaisons to communicate with other organiations on a permananent basis. The liaisons should be listed on a page somewhere with contact info for the HOT side of the relationship and just general info about who they liaise with on the other side. Then the community can direct questions to the relevant liaison who can respond accordingly, or contact their counterpart.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 5: Liasons should try to get "on the record" statements from aid organizations about how they plan to use the data in particular event responses, and should followup afterwards for feedback and promotional purposes so we can show how our data was helpful.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 6: We should have a template for HMPs with slots to fill in for coordinator, who will use the data, and other relevent info. Filling in some of these slots will be requirements to go to full activation.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 7: We should also make templates for the more 'boilerplate' stuff on an HMP page like how external groups can use our data, links to editing tutorials, templates for listing related task manager jobs or imagery layers in table format, etc.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 8: We should further develop the checklist of things to do when creating an HMP with a well defined priority list as well as a summary checklist to allow for an easy check that no steps were skipped.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 9: Initial creation of a humanitarian mapping project wiki page should be easy and quick, but we should encourage referring to the checklist.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 10: We should work to develop a monitoring system to try to identify new disasters as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.
16:18 AndrewBuck:
16:18 AndrewBuck: 11: We should have a centralised list of current HMP's so that volunteers can easily compare events and decide where to contribute.
16:18 AndrewBuck: that is the list...
16:19 AndrewBuck: I numbered them for easy discussion.
16:19 AndrewBuck: Also, they are mostly in the order we discussed them but some were retroactively inserted to be next to the other related issues.
16:20 AndrewBuck: Any comments? Should we assign any particular tasks to peopple?
16:20 russdeffner: I think we could 'upgrade' 3 to say that for Activation a coordinator must be identified
16:20 harry-wood: I'm interested in working on the early checklists for wiki pages
16:21 harry-wood: and the number 11 centralised list idea
16:21 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: that is already a part of that one when we agreed on it. I could reword it to make it more clear.
16:21 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: sounds good. Regarding the list for 11. If we make an HMP infobox that could automaticvally add the pages it is included on to a wiki category. That could help you in making your list.
16:21 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: I think clarifying that we need a coordinator to move to official Activation would be beneficial (and prevent gaps in convesations, etc.)
16:22 harry-wood: yup
16:22 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: can you suggest a wording for it then?
16:22 russdeffner: sure...
16:22 AndrewBuck: I know what you were suggesting but having trouble rewording it myself.
16:22 harry-wood: but also clarify that the a coordinator is *not* required for Humanitarial Mapping Project wiki page
16:23 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: yeah. Nothing at all is required for an HMP
16:23 AndrewBuck: that is the first step
16:23 AndrewBuck: an HMP that meets certain requirements and gets formal approval becomes an activation.
16:24 russdeffner: 3: We agreed that for an HMP to become an Activation, a Coordinator must be designated. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination.
16:24 AndrewBuck: I can work on number 6 and 7.
16:24 russdeffner: (and maybe grammatically correct, should be "for a HMP"
16:25 AndrewBuck: ok, I agree with russdeffner's rewording. Do others concur on changing it?
16:25 pierzen: yes
16:25 harry-wood: yes
16:25 AndrewBuck: I will fix an->a
16:26 AndrewBuck: I guess the a/an thing is an english/british thing. Depends how you say the 'H'.
16:26 AndrewBuck: Anyway, the new text is on the list.
16:27 harry-wood: I think number 4 might be quite an ambitious aim
16:27 AndrewBuck: pierzen: can you work on 4 and 5?
16:27 AndrewBuck: I know we are already working on 4 a bit.
16:27 russdeffner: I don't think I have anything else to add, and am willing to help with 'tasks'
16:28 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: you want to help me with the infoboxes and whatnot?
16:28 russdeffner: I take that back, maybe 4 should be 'forwarded' to a separate working group, like communications
16:29 AndrewBuck: The coomunications group is for OSM not for HOT.
16:29 AndrewBuck: unless we have our own that I don't know about.
16:29 russdeffner: AndrewBuck: absolutely, contact me off-list, russdeffner@gmail.com for specifics, etc.
16:29 russdeffner: I thought HOT was working to establish something like that
16:29 harry-wood: I think maybe we should present number for as more of a soft "It would be nice if..."
16:30 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: ok, It would be good to skype voice chat while we work. I have found that works well, but we can sort that out ourselves.
16:30 pierzen: AndrewBuck: 4 and 5 ok. I agree with harry-wood that this is ambitious. We might rephrase 4.
16:31 AndrewBuck: any suggestion onn the rewording?
16:31 russdeffner: I agree that 4&5 may both be beyond this working group and may need additional HOT collaboration
16:31 AndrewBuck: It is ambitious but we are already making progress and it can't hurt to try.
16:31 harry-wood: yeah I don't think it needs rewording necessarily
16:32 AndrewBuck: And we can refer it up to other groups if need be. That doesn't stop us from setting it as a goal from this meeting, we can always modify these in the future.
16:32 russdeffner: agree
16:32 AndrewBuck: Remember these are not things that _will_ happen, just what this meeting of this working group thought should happen at this time.
16:33 AndrewBuck: Ok. So it sounds like we pretty much agree. I will repost the modiffied list for final confirmation...
16:33 pierzen: ok
16:33 AndrewBuck: Meeting outcomes:
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: 1: We start an HMP for any disaster that merits mapping work, but only rise to activation for the most important ones that meet the activation criteria.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: 2: We agreed that other orgs using the data should be a key requirement for official activation (as opposed to just HMP).
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: 3: We agreed that for a HMP to become an Activation, a Coordinator must be designated. The coordinators should either be drawn from a pool of trained volunteers or should be mentored if they are new to running a coordination
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: pierzen - 4: We should establish a set of liaisons to communicate with other organiations on a permananent basis. The liaisons should be listed on a page somewhere with contact info for the HOT side of the relationship and just general info about who they liaise with on the other side. Then the community can direct questions to the relevant liaison who can respond accordingly, or contact their counterpart.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: pierzen - 5: Liasons should try to get "on the record" statements from aid organizations about how they plan to use the data in particular event responses, and should followup afterwards for feedback and promotional purposes so we can show how our data was helpful.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: russdeffner, AndrewBuck - 6: We should have a template for HMPs with slots to fill in for coordinator, who will use the data, and other relevent info. Filling in some of these slots will be requirements to go to full activation.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: russdeffner, AndrewBuck - 7: We should also make templates for the more 'boilerplate' stuff on an HMP page like how external groups can use our data, links to editing tutorials, templates for listing related task manager jobs or imagery layers in table format, etc.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: harry-wood - 8: We should further develop the checklist of things to do when creating an HMP with a well defined priority list as well as a summary checklist to allow for an easy check that no steps were skipped.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: harry-wood - 9: Initial creation of a humanitarian mapping project wiki page should be easy and quick, but we should encourage referring to the checklist.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: AndrewBuck - 10: We should work to develop a monitoring system to try to identify new disasters as soon as possible to begin documenting them on an HMP page.
16:33 AndrewBuck:
16:33 AndrewBuck: harry-wood - 11: We should have a centralised list of current HMP's so that volunteers can easily compare events and decide where to contribute.
16:34 pierzen: Good progress in two hours. Thanks a lot.
16:34 AndrewBuck: 3 hours, but yeah, I think we made a lot of progress.
16:34 russdeffner: :)
16:34 pierzen: oups, yes 3hours!
16:35 pierzen: We are due for a break, I think.
16:35 AndrewBuck: ok. Does that all look good, and should we adjourn?
16:35 pierzen: yes
16:35 harry-wood: yes
16:35 AndrewBuck: Who will post the chatlog?
16:35 harry-wood: I will
16:35 russdeffner: yes, agree to adjourn
16:35 pierzen: yes on the wiki as usual.
16:35 harry-wood: on here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Working_groups/Activation
16:36 AndrewBuck: I see the second chatlog was formatted very nicely. Would be good to do this one the same way.
16:36 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Working_groups/Activation/meeting_2012-03-22
16:36 AndrewBuck: that is the one that is nicely formatted.
16:36 harry-wood: I have a thing http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/adiumirc2mediawiki.php to do that
16:36 AndrewBuck: And I would put the meeting points we approved right at the top in its own section.
16:37 AndrewBuck: harry-wood: I figured you had some clever way to do that.
16:37 AndrewBuck: Thanks.
16:37 pierzen: and time converted to GMT.
16:37 AndrewBuck: Ok, so we are done then. Thanks everyone for attending.
16:37 pierzen: Thanks a lot to all,
16:37 harry-wood: Thankyou
16:37 russdeffner: Great work Hotties!

Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Working_groups/Activation/meeting_2013-06-26&oldid=1587092"