FW: Proposed agenda for GTFS-DRT conference call Wed at 10:30 AM CT
Kevin Chambers
This is one in a series of emails I'm forwarding to the new GTFS Flexible Transit Working Group. These emails make up the initial conversation that led to the creation of the working group. I'm sending them with permission of the original senders for archival purposes, allowing new participants to the conversation to get up to speed.
From: Roger Teal [mailto:Roger...@demandtrans.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:05 PM
To: Aaron Antrim (aa...@trilliumtransit.com); jeff....@rtd-denver.com; bar...@cutr.usf.edu; Kevin Chambers; Kevin Webb (kw...@conveyal.com); heather....@gmail.com; Denis Haskin
Subject: Proposed agenda for GTFS-DRT conference call Wed at 10:30 AM CT
Below are my thoughts, with a very helpful contribution from Aaron, about the agenda for our conference call/web meeting. After introductions, we can modify this if others have some different thoughts about how best to approach the meeting. BTW, I have another web conference right up until the time of our call, but am not hosting it, so I will try to get ours started a bit ahead of 10:30 AM CT, but not sure if that will work out. So bear with me if the web meeting component is a minute or two late in getting started.
Roger
1. Brief introductions (30-60 seconds max per person) to give everyone a quick sense of focus/interests of each participant re GTFS for DRT
2. Google’s invitation to participate—or at least Roger’s interpretation of it
3. Quick overview of currently relevant projects (1-2 minutes max per project)
a. TCRP Quick Response project—data standards for mobility management (Roger)
b. RideConnections work on clearinghouse/hub for mobility management trip exchange (Kevin C.)
c. Atlanta VTCLI project (Denis)
d. Inland Empire I&R system for VTCLI (Heather)
4. Developing a working group for GTFS/DRT
a. Purpose of group
b. Are we missing any key areas and need additional contributors to adequately address them?
c. Working approach—tools, communications, desired product(s)
d. Leveraging prior work
e. Communication with Google to insure alignment with their preferred process/objectives
5. Spec development process
a. Submissions/review/discussion process
b. Scope of spec
c. Major elements of spec—can we achieve general agreement on them now?
i. If not, process for achieving this quickly so it can guide submissions
d. Process to develop draft specification
e. Spec producers—RTD?
f. Spec consumers—Inland Empire, Atlanta, Google? What do we want for a consuming app(s)?
6. Immediate next steps
a. Draft scope of spec
b. Draft key elements of spec
c. Communication with Google
d. Target deadlines for deliverables
Kevin Chambers
This is one in a series of emails I'm forwarding to the new GTFS Flexible Transit Working Group. These emails make up the initial conversation that led to the creation of the working group. I'm sending them with permission of the original senders for archival purposes, allowing new participants to the conversation to get up to speed.
From: Barbeau, Sean [mailto:bar...@cutr.usf.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:05 AM
To: Roger Teal; Aaron Antrim (aa...@trilliumtransit.com); jeff....@rtd-denver.com; Kevin Chambers; Kevin Webb (kw...@conveyal.com); heather....@gmail.com; Denis Haskin
Subject: RE: Proposed agenda for GTFS-DRT conference call Wed at 10:30 AM CT
Hi all,
Thanks for the call today, I’m excited to see the process moving along.
I would encourage everyone to go ahead and join the official GTFS Changes group, in addition to the group that we will be forming for our DRT proposal:
https://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/subscribe?note=1&hl=en&noredirect=true
The requirement to join says:
“In order to ensure a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter, membership in this group is limited to current users of the GTFS. Please tell us how you're using the spec:”
(my emphasis on “spec”)
I think a perfectly valid response is “I’m interested in the application/expansion of the GTFS spec to Demand-Response Transportation”. Since it says “spec” and not “data”, I think everyone copied here would be qualified to join.
In my experience with joining a few of these groups, the moderation process of approval can take up to a few days to turn around, and nothing is more frustrating that wanting to be part of the conversation on the group, but being stuck in the moderation queue, unable to post J.
Sean