Introducing the Open Mobility Foundation

• @xxmarcelxx: OMF launched! 15 city initial members, a number of private sector members and quasi-governmental / non-profit advisors
• first board meeting July 22, 2019
• near future, after board meets, forthcoming transition plan for ongoing maintenance of MDS to OMF

Github Issues & PR: Multimodal Provider (#170, #255, #336).

• Light-weight solution to allow provider to support multiple-modes
• Schemas are separated into sub-directories, README is still at root
• Lime to follow-up with PR to adapt handling of Lime pod
• Other modes/ideas?

Github Issues: State Machine (#191, #276, #271)

• No one on the call has yet implemented the publication_time optional field in status_changes.
• Discussion about making publication_time mandatory, probably need to wait until an actual implemention is out in the wild.
• @billdirks: if status_change goes away (e.g. operator deleted) what happens? Is there a deleted_time? Will follow-up with Issue

Github PRs, Policy, Compliance and Audit (#322, #326, #333)

• @whereissean Ellis & Associates framing: important step towards digitizing policy. Designed to allow for all of LADOTs dockless policies so-far, and to be extensible for other use-cases. Interested in feedback towards utility for other modes. Meant to be more expressive and superset of /service_areas functions
• @hunterowens: Other cities, please read through your dockless policies and see if/how they might fit into these APIs. Need feedback/comments on PRs.
• @lionel-panhaleux: BlueSystems has been looking, question about City permits
• @rf-: seems geared towards agency APIs, how does this work for cities that are only implementing provider at this point? E.g. can cities use data from the provider feeds to Audit policies?
  • @whereissean: LADOT is focused on using data from agency streams, but no reason it has to be. E&A to follow-up with when updates to drafts are coming
• @billdirks: agency/Policy/Audit/Compliance seems to be very geared towards LADOT specific needs; how are other cities weighing in to standing up new endpoints (like agency or Policy/Audit/Compliance)?
  • @xxmarcelxx: this is why we've been pushing for OMF, these are the types of conversations and decisions that will be made collectively by cities and other members of OMF

Github Issue: Making Queries more predictable / maintaining MDS data over years (#268)

• Now that MDS is getting on over a year old, is there more we can do to make older queries less resource-intensive?
• Changing granularity for further in the past queries? E.g. can't request by hour, but maybe by day or week or month?
• Faheem, built something like MDS in Dubai. Available for feedback on dealing with large-scale queries. Will add comments on issue #268.
• @hunterowens: Can we have a proposal in the next few weeks to debate an approach?

Reconciliation between Agency and Provider

• @hunterowens: forthcoming reconciliation issue for how to get the event model back in sync between agency and provider.

Open Discussion / Pain Points / New Issues

• @margo from Seattle DOT: has there been more discussion / thought on the standardized fleet counting?
  • @thekaveman: Santa Monica has been looking at different cutoff values for when we think a vehicle is off the PROW. Initial results seem to show that for cutoff values between 2-14 days result in similar counts, getting into 30-90 days results in larger variation
  • @Leon Kitain / Lime: what about the lost/deregistered events from agency? Can we bring something like that into provider?
  • @whereissean: We've been talking with providers as building agency, policy question as to when a device can come back online after being lost/deregistered?
  • @hunterowens: Seattle and Santa Monica can you talk to your policy shops about introduction of new events? Would it be useful or ignored? Need other cities to weigh in on how their policies may impact, but would be good to build some flexibility into MDS.