Web conference notes, 2021.02.11 (Joint Working Group)

Joint Working Group - Provider Services

#red NOTE NEW TIME TWO HOURS SOONER #red

#red NOTE NEW ZOOM MEETING ID/LINK/PHONE! (as of Jan 1, 2021)

Meeting ID: 841 7098 9462 - Passcode 612987
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84170989462?pwd=WTRlY25wOVhNeS8wQk1iM2QzYkQvUT09

One tap mobile: +19294362866,,84170989462#,,,,*612987# US (New York)

Dial by phone: +1 929 436 2866 (US) (Find your local number)

Attendees

Add your own name, link, and organization during call

Main Topics

Next release as a minor release
Slowing down pace of release changes to reflect on what's successful and what needs more attention
Review of items marked as beta
MDS version survey that OMF is working on

Notes and or transcript of the call with presentation, document, GitHub links and calls to action.

Release Cadence

There is a tension between wanting to be slower with releases and focus on what is happening today, versus a desire to support more modes and future features.
Some providers, third parties, and cities have not upgraded for various reasons.
Europe seems to be leapfrogging since they are sometimes just getting started with MDS: 1.0.0, Agency, Policy is being used organically.
Even though release pace is slowing, the releases are more complex
Minor release still have complexity - non-breaking does not mean non-trivial.

Policy Discussions

What is a space for city policy discussions for MDS development, when the WGs are technical?
Relates through other data streams like custom reports.
Josh - Policy needs to lead the technical discussion. Use cases should lead the discussion, not be split. 2 WGs (policy and tech) might be bad.
Maybe keep the tech/policy folks together. Two phases in a meeting, policy then technical. City policy makers would be engaged first, keep tech people together too and listening to the policy needs.
Maybe solving a policy need for a city, but not for lots of cities.

New features and beta

Is solving a policy need in MDS for one city enough, if it's not immediately useful for multiple cities? Consensus is yes if there are two parties involved in using the change.
Angela: Theme is balance between speed and features. Solution is not one thing, addressed on a variety of fronts.

Cities updating MDS permit requirements

When are cities updating their regulations? Flexibility to do it is there, but it's not done frequently.
Mitch: Annual is common. Seen requiring upgrading within 6 weeks (maybe too fast) for GBFS. MDS recommends 6 months for major releases - note there is knowledge of the release timing and features 2-4 months before release.
It's hard for a city to have a regulatory component to have providers test out new features before they are in MDS. It's different than GBFS and MobilityData where they require the feature to be in the real world first with producers and consumers.
Beta features - OMF says these are things we are working on, but no incentive to try them out and give the feedback.
Josh: maybe ad hoc beta features are harder to implement for lots of cities before they are in the spec.
GBFS has longer release cycles, borrowed requirements from GTFS history. And GBFS is simpler than MDS.
Mitch: currently slowing down release cycles, but the frequency is variable based on features and need.
Survey idea: reasonable frequency for major/minor release.
Providers may not be able to proactively upgrade despite knowing about the changes months beforehand. But they can at least prepare and roadmap it knowing it's coming.
OMF can sit in the center and have a shared understanding of the players to create collective recommendations.