Web conference notes, 2020.02.13 (Provider Services wg)

• biweekly call at 11am PST / 2pm EST
• Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/627957166

Meeting ID: 627 957 166

One tap mobile:

• +16699006833,,627957166# US (San Jose)
• +19294362866,,627957166# US (New York)

Dial by your location:

• +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
• +1 929 436 2866 US (New York)

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aeJWJsuC2b

• Kegan Maher, City of Santa Monica
• Mark Maxham, Ellis & Associates
• Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Open Mobility Foundation
• Akshay Malik, City of Philadelphia
• Matt Davis, Populus
• Michael Schnuerle, City of Louisville
• Tom Santinelli, Bird
• Becky Beauchamp, Bird
• Brady Law, Lyft
• Sean Roberts, Open Mobility Foundation
• Matthew Baker, City of Miami

add your name at beginning or end of call

• Provider/Agency reconciliation WG progress

  • Spreadsheet
  • State-machine

• 0.4.1 Milestone check

  • https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/milestone/10

• MDS Release Process / OMF Review

  • https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/pull/453

• /vehicles endpoint

  • https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/issues/310
  • https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/pull/376

Meetings are Wed 9a PT. Currently working through the spreadsheet referenced above. All are welcome and encouraged to participate. Ideally each session contains more than one mobility provider, city representative, and tooling company representative.

0.4.1 80% complete as far as open v closed issues.

Clarification of required/optional #456.

Optional events may become non-optional after getting some road-testing.

Policy schema (#310) might not get done. Punt to City Services group?

No major issues blocking release.

Release guideline updates are in PR #453

Clarified 12w cycle (6w too short)

Discussion of OMF board approval after review by tech council. Until fully approved it’s a “release candidate”.

Next board meeting is Apr 1.

Tech council are expected to participate in the 12w cycle to minimize surprise.

Exceptions should be rare but WG will be asked to address any concerns.

Question: How will the community at large be informed of formal adoption of release candidate vs release?

Answer (Jascha): RC should be a “preview” but they should hold off until board approves. Will add some verbiage in the release guidelines to this effect. Longer-term we may make a diagram. Changing verbiage in wiki also to change “target release” to “target release candidate” and adding additional steps with dates. Current plan is to tag dev branch as RC and wait for board approval to merge.

Related, going to switch default branch “master” per WG-ops mailing list

Kegan added schema

Feedback almost 100% addressed

Ben, please sign the CLA (blocking the merge) :). Becky at Bird is on it.

Consensus on returning “only vehicles in reserved/avail/unavailable” = public right-of-way. No "removed".

• Release guidelines
• Release notes
• RC Sunday 3/1