WZDWG Open Governance Conversation

August 4, 2021

This document complies the questions discussed by the Work Zone Data Working Group (WZDWG) community. Many responses to the questions are suggestions supplied by WZDWG members and do not represent the official opinion of USDOT.

• Question: What is the amount of funding needed annually (to support the way WZDWG is setup now), and broadly how those funds are spent now (staff, licensing, etc.)?

  • Currently, the annual cost to run WZDx is in the range of $250k - 500k; this primarily funds support for WZDWG and its subgroups along with communication and outreach.

• Question: WZDx has been modeled after the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS); are there useful models to follow from other open transportation standards?

  • Most open development specifications (e.g., GTFS, Mobility Data Specification (MDS), General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS), etc.) are structured through some combination of an open-source foundation and nonprofit organization. A Pooled Fund Study is another option under consideration for long-term support.

• Question: How do the OMF and SAE International participants in the conversation today think about the possibility of integrating WZDx into their organizations?

  • Jascha Franklin-Hodge of OMF noted significant alignment between the WZDx specification and content handled by OMF. OMF primarily works in the intersection between government agencies managing the public right of way and the companies that operate in that space, initially with MDS. OMF is an agile organization where development takes place through a combination of working group members’ efforts, GitHub development, and community feedback.
  • Ed Straub of SAE International noted the importance of involving both data producers and data users in the development process. SAE International operates through committees made up of volunteers who provide input into voluntary industry standards.

• Question: What can the WZDWG stakeholder community do to make sure that the years of community work to stand up WZDx do not go to waste? If member fees are a future consideration, how to balance the challenges of public-sector involvement in anything that appears to be “pay-to-play”?

  • To avoid pay-to-play, one option is a long-term home in an existing non-profit, or establishing a new organization. The return on investment of saving lives with better work zone event data is large and should attract organizations who would like to fund the work. To maintain the interest of stakeholders, WZDWG needs to maintain the agility and forward movement of WZDx specification development.

• Question: Is there a need to coordinate WZDx with related European/international standards?

  • Currently, WZDx is loosely aligned with EU standards such as TN-ITS and DATEX II. There are no current efforts to undertake additional alignment; discussion participants had mixed views about the immediate need for this activity.

• Question: Does future governance include the actual operation of a central (data) repository or just maintaining the standard?

  • USDOT maintains list of APIs hosted by IOOs in a data feed registry, as well as a “sandbox” that archives currently available WZDx data feeds. In theory, WZDx governance and support can be decoupled from these. There are models of nonprofit organizations such as GTFS where feeds are maintained outside of GTFS.org, but there are also models for doing them together.

• Question: Is the current WZDx data feed registry – where currently available data feeds can be exported to CSV, XML, & other formats – adequate?

  • The existence of a central repository or feed registry is more important than who maintains it (e.g., public sector, private sector, non-profit). Additionally, there is also a need for the public to be able to test and validate the feeds. Currently, feeds are validated through a self-validation process undertaken by the data producer and supported through a USDOT contract.