Web conference notes, 2020.04.23 (Provider Services wg)

Web conference notes, 2020.04.23 (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

Attendees

• Kegan Maher, City of Santa Monica
• Mark Maxham, Ellis & Associates
• Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Open Mobility Foundation
• Michael Durling, Ellis & Associates
• Heidi Guenin, MobilityData
• Neil Goldader, Ellis & Associates
• Frederic ROBINET, Vianova I/O
• Margo Dawes, Seattle Department of Transportation

add your name at beginning or end of call

Agenda

• 0.4.1 Release Candidate check

  • Clarified that /vehicles is not intended to replace GBFS
  • Clarified review and decision making for beta features

• 1.0.0

  • Milestone
  • Provider Issues/PRs

• Provider/Agency reconciliation update

  • Spreadsheet
  • Notes
  • State Machine
  • Slide Deck

• Docked Micromobility

  • Original Issue
  • Stops PRs #427 and #442
  • Stations PR #441

Minutes

• 0.4.1 Release Candidate check

Final review, added language around “beta” vs “optional”. Board concerns: (1) things could linger in beta even if operationalized, so need a process to get out (2) Does the existence of beta lead to bloat if we are not seeing adoption. Addressed in generic fashion in this addition. Will see how it plays in practice.

Margo from SDOT: is “optional” the same as “beta”?

Jascha: no, optional is still optional, “beta” means “new, intrinsically less stable and/or reliable”. Feedback on the language is requested.

Kegan: cities get to decide what’s mandated by the SLAs, and that can include beta endpoints

• 1.0.0

1.0.0 cycle started, issues identified, subsequent weeks we will be going over the issues in detail.

• Provider/Agency reconciliation update

New slide deck (link added above), board presentation by Mark M and Adam K on May 5th. Some feedback from Margo at SDOT was propagated from email to GitHub, Max to follow up with Margo.

• Docked Micromobility

Originally discussed in 0.4.1, time to dig in. Two PRs open, let’s evaluate. Neil from E&A reviewed #427. Nobody from Remix, who submitted the other PR, was on the call. Some question open about shared data structures (such as stops) and whether they should live in multiple locations (Agency, Provider, etc.) or a single shared data-structure document.

GBFS representative Heidi said “we just approved the geofencing and vehicle-types, take a look”.

Jascha expressed mild reluctance to add another endpoint for historical stop data, and proposed a break-out group for further discussion. Heidi, Neil, others proposed organizing. Jascha volunteered Neil as point-person. Kegan said he was at his limit and would defer.

• Miscellaneous

Margo at SDOT says “actual cost” and “standard cost” are of interest, and they would like them to be required. Sometimes promotional deals are difficult to distinguish from low-income trips. Maybe a new trip field describing the sort of plan.

Jascha: Previous discussion stalled out over privacy concerns. Many cities are interested in this type of aggregated reporting, which is a large topic. Reporting in MDS is a worthwhile goal but the requirements across cities are unclear. Want to make sure we solve the right problems with the right tools.

Margo: any aggregate data is difficult to trust fully, because no way to verify.

Jascha: I will reinvigorate the topic with the community.

end of minutes