Meeting — November 18, 2019

Attendees: smichel, Salt, MSiep, alignwaivers, mray, wolftune


Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 0
  • New Topics: 3 -> 2
  • Posts: 27 -> 26

Reminders on building new best-practice habits

Sociocracy stuff

  • Drivers, describing driver statements:
    • Current situation + effect + what’s needed + impact of doing it
    • forum discussion of our use:
    • Objections vs concerns
    • Example of proposal phase:

Use of GitLab kanban boards

  • Use the boards to pick your tasks, dragging or marking To Do and Doing appropriately


## Salt met author of unfinished book on patronage funding at Communications conference
- NEXT STEP (salt): follow up with conference contacts, D. Yvette Wohn

## Issue grooming / dumping etc
- <>
- NEXT STEP (smchel17): Delete or close the LFNW 2019 milestone
- NEXT STEP (smichel + wolftune + alignwaivers): schedule grooming session
- NEXT STEP (msiep): groom design repo issues

## Nathan Schneider as Board recruit?
- Michael went on System 76 tour with him, welcome to use that reference as a prompt
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): reach out to Nathan

## Code development progress
- NEXT STEP (chreekat): run the backlog of crowdmatches (blocked by needing to build and deploy updated site)

SeaGL recap

  • Salt: We had a table for the first time, it looked great
  • alignwaivers: Talked to many people, got contact info from a couple potentially interested folks. Having a table => more exposure than previously
  • Salt: Any takeaways?
  • Salt: I noticed we didn’t have a printed project form, or laptop with <??>
  • alignwaivers: We had an etherpad volunteer form..
  • wolftune: I had internet connection issues, just put the content locally, got 7 contact info signups
  • wolftune: Have a couple potential board recruits.
  • wolftune: Budget limit question comes up a lot. We don’t want people to go into complex game theory analysis with limits, it’s just a failsafe. Limit is not dynamic / crowdmatching is not about “getting people to their limits”.
  • wolftune: The limit being sitewide is an implementation detail, we don’t need to mention it upfront because it creates too much interest about a non-core thing.
  • wolftune: My talk ended up being pretty snowdrift-centric (used it as an example a lot). I believe it was recorded.
  • Salt: How was the checklist of things for conferences? Anything missing?
  • alignwaivers: It was sufficient. The tape we used worked, didn’t ruin the sign.
  • NEXT STEP? (wolftune, alignwaivers, Salt): Verify tabling checklist is reasonable:
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): gitlab issue for where to keep checklist/task

Marking prominently that we’re under-construction

  • mray: I’ve started to create a mockup, plan to work on and share it after this meeting.
  • wolftune: Bryan is almost done getting the build system working, but until that’s done, the site is very hard to update
  • NEXT STEP (mray): finish mockup & get feedback

Volunteer / role recruiting etc

  • wolftune: I have 7 people who are interested, some students. I also have 50-60 other business cards like this from conferences past.
  • Salt: I’m very excited that once civi is up, we can try to reach out to all (60+) of those people.
  • Satl: We keep looking for big announcement moments, I think getting civi up is one of those (email blast: “please verify your contact info, sorry for taking so long to get to you”)
  • alignwavers: Should we put that in a spreadsheet ahead of time for easier import?
  • Salt: Yes
  • NEXT STEP (alignwavers): Enter business card / contact info into a spreadsheet.
  • Use thoughts here:
  • mray: Areas of interest at the bottom of the form seems to make sense at the top. From the perspective of a volunteer, I’d feel more comfortable entering my info with the perspective of what context I’m giving it in. (+1 from msiep and wolftune)
  • msiep: We’ll have to look into the UX of required fields with civi
  • mray: putting the most helpful/necessary fields at the top? - not make it feel like a big task to fill out all paperwork
  • wolftune: Even though civi data is not tied to anyone’s account, it’s still somewhat subject to our ToS; I’d like to get consent from everyone to enter their data in our system.
  • mray: How would this form be sent to people? A pdf? Link?
  • Salt: This would be a link on the website (so it would want to conform to our design).
  • mray: I’d like to hide/deprioritize certain optional info so the amount of input doesn’t feel so overwhelming — a smaller/lighter form is much more inviting.
  • Salt: It should be easy to set these up, we could even have a different form per conference.
  • msiep: There may be a way in civi to first ask for minimum info (email), and then send an email in response with a link to where they can fill out more (eg, profile). (+1 from mray)
  • wolftune: re: areas of interest — if we have defined roles for people we need, easier to onboard people for those specific things
  • Salt: Civi has a feature, “Here’s an action that happened, what do I need to do to complete it?” Used for case management.
  • mray: I see the benefit of having that, but am not sure we want to present it up front (implied: on this page). For example, some people might not want to fill a role for the first time.
  • wolftune: yes, although for some people it’s also an upside.
  • wolftune: How much should we involve board of directors in this? It’s a PM thing, but also related to the board’s vision of what a successful team would look like.
  • wolftune: I have a call tomorrow with top potential board recruits. Should I discuss this stuff with the board?
  • Salt: I would lean towards less, but hard to say since we don’t know what the board looks like right now.
  • msiep: What are the technical constraints?
  • Salt: It’s done with drupal in the backend, separate from the rest of the site.
  • msiep: Okay, although we’ll still want to share a style guide.
  • NEXT STEP (msiep): Wireframe of (or wherever the form will live), potentially with second stage “fill out profile” option

meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions round

  • smichel: start meeting on top at hour
  • good to see many people here
  • alignwavers: some tech issues, but it’s nominal with me & aaron being in same room
  • mray: same, also thanks for keeping discussion on topic & short
  • wolftune: sorry for distractions (external & internal). I think there are still best practices we can use from sociocracy to improve meetings, also maybe splitting into subgroups to discuss unrelated topics in parallel?