Meeting — December 23, 2019

Attendees: alignwaivers, wolftune, smichel, Salt


Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 2 -> 1
  • New Topics: 3 -> 2
  • Posts: 17 -> 14

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
  • e.g. wolftune’s:

Conversation queuing

  • “o/” or “/” means that you have something to say and want to be put in the queue
  • “c/” or “?” means that you have a clarifying question and want to jump to the top of the queue
  • “d” means thumbs up, encouragement, agreement, etc.
  • three discussion mechanisms: hand symbol, round, open discussion

Review previous meeting feedback

  • alignwaivers: still practicing on note-taking, thanks for help
  • mray: good meeting, extra round was helpful
  • wolftune: time-keeping / time-boxing might be helpful esp. if we see a topic getting lots of discussion


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

## Volunteer recruiting application
- NEXT STEP (msiep): Wireframe of (or wherever the form will live), potentially with second stage "fill out profile" option (see meeting notes )

## Engagement / "Community member" recruiting
- NEXT STEP (Salt): create a driver statement for an active community voice role

## Volunteer / role recruiting etc
-NEXT STEP (salt): reaching out to volunteers from SeaGL

## Code development progress / site building
- wofltune: chreekat replied via gitlab with the deploy command to run (and also showed me how to build a standalone binary). I still need to try it, send the binary to the server and ping him again when it's ready.
- wolftune: the 2nd step is documentation for build process of building the binary alone, and conferring with him whether the information should go in the code or the ops repo
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): ping chreekat [DONE]
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): document the new build process
- NEXT STEP (chreekat): deploy updated site, then after the updated site is deployed, run the backlog of crowdmatches 

## Marking prominently that we're under-construction
-NEXT STEP (mray): create a new issue in gitlab from mockup and put into implementation repo
- NEXT STEP (smichel17): Privately reach out to h30, make sure to mention the 'under construction' site banner issue
- NEXT STEP (salt): look through volunteers (recent first) to recruit someone to specifically work on this implementation

## OSI Representative
- NEXT STEP (Salt): discuss with ehash about OSI representation (and connect wolftune and ehash)

## Social Channels
- NEXT STEP (salt): open discussion on forum continuing this topic

Capturing carry-overs, moving out of this “inbox”

  • wolftune: feels like having more things in carrying over is like sitting in an inbox - want to move toward making active progress / in a better system like gitlab, better prioritized, etc. This ideally wouldn’t be the primary place for things to be captured
  • start of round
  • alignwaiver: makes sense: due to recency, items addressed are arbitrary relative to actual priorities
  • wolftune: ideally have one, or small set of places, to check where we have work todo, carry-overs valuable, but this is currently letting us avoid looking at gitlab
  • smichel: reasonable, but value in short hand list, this could be captured in a kanban board on gitlab, agenda items and carry overs
  • salt: pretty good idea, having this be in gitlab, understands tension. Diff between this and gitlab, it is captured explicitly with next steps,etc. There’s overhead of getting it into gitlab. personally hasn’t had time to do any of it.
  • smichel: would having it on kanban board (where you can look at it the same way) be helpful
  • end of round
  • wolftune: doubtful how feasible it will be to mark kanban board in gitlab, and make a view. Not proposing we change the carryover process at all, still a way of checking over last meetings minutes. The goal should be look at the carryovers and have them be removed/captured as agenda item. keep doing the way we have been doing it but once it has been reviewed, doesn’t want to rely on the item sitting there. during week might check your carryovers and either do it or make sure its captured. not necessarily more valuable to capture in gitlab, just doesn’t want them to be carried over repeatedly (unless relevant member absent)
  • wolftune: should bring up (proposal) on the forum?
  • salt: sociocracy-style would be good
  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): post driver-statement & proposal to forum

Advanced agenda planning for meetings

  • secretary role, reminders about this etc.
  • we now have a thread to discuss how to resolve this tension
  • salt: automated thread based on meeting that allows people to discuss agenda items for a week or so, tracker of sorts for meeting
  • wolftune: in order to make it feasible might need a secretary accountable to make this happen. kanban board in this case could work, ‘next meeting’ label
  • wolftune: consider what would be involved in a step like that, and capture the idea for a secretary
  • salt: probably a group on gitlab that would fit, i.e. governance
  • wolftune: yeah governance is where it would fit
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): capture the driver including the idea of assigning it to a secretary who we need to recruit / elect

Issue grooming / dumping etc

  • NEXT STEP (align_waivers): write first draft of a grooming-guide
  • NEXT STEP (smichel17): Delete or close the LFNW 2019 milestone
  • NEXT STEP (smichel + wolftune + alignwaivers + msiep): schedule grooming session
  • NEXT STEP (msiep): groom design repo issues
  • alignwaivers: I don’t have enough of a clear guide, slowly working to make sense of how to do this process, taking time to get comfortable with how to groom
  • capturing my thoughts as I go is developing something of a grooming guide for others
  • Q on multiple “doing” tags….
  • wolftune: actually an error, shouldn’t be multiple ‘doing’ tags
  • NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): groom labels (planning this, forum post, issue for this)


  • smichel17: just wanted to say i’m around but haven’t been spending on sd, part of that is amount of focus/distractability - syncronous and things that are shorter time frames work better (IRC > forum posts feels like less friction) - if anyone wants to ping me (particularly from 12:30 to 2pm PST) that would be a good time to get coaxed into doing stuff
  • salt: calendar would be good to know when people have availability
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): check history of discussion for ‘calendar of availability’
  • wolftune: Lisha from Geeks Without Bounds is interested in being on the board, also need to send a message to update OSI for years progress
  • wolftune: finding time to cowork, bouncing ideas around syncronously and not using up meeting time is ideal

meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions round

  • salt: good, but sorry for starting late
  • wolftune: good stuff, cutting meeting early potentially gives more time for coworking, really want to see that happen more esp. alignwaivers and smichel
  • smichel: suggest > as an indicator that you understand what is being discussed/proposed, acknowledgment that the point can be concluded, so the same point doesn’t need to be reiterated (but nothing else to add) - similar to d but that is a push to move on
  • smichel: combination of acknowledgement and ‘got it lets move on’ (like a facilitation suggestion; wolftune adds: can be hard to get a sense of being understood without the in-person subtle signals)

[postmeeting clarification]

  • smichel: Yeah, if I were in person with someone, this would be communicated mostly in body language. In a 1-on-1 coworking session, it’d probably be “yeah” & “mm-hm” in voice (intent to wrap up coming from tone of voice)… but in a meeting it’s awkward to interject that way
  • wolftune adds: facilitator could/should be quicker to cut off people who may ramble, perhaps providing a short summary or ask “do the notes capture your points?” so that we move on
  • smichel17: That would work too. It does put all the burden on the facilitator, though. This could also be considered a note to the facilitator so they don’t have to guess if the additional re-iterating is helpful or repetitive.
  • wolftune: Yes, but the idea is also that we can all help with facilitation, and cues like > is a way to do that in this medium; speakers could also ask for someone to reiterate to be sure they feel understood
  • smichel17: Driver statement beginnings: Main problem to solve is the combination of (A) As a speaker or facilitator, it can be difficult to gauge whether the audience “got it” yet, and (B) as the audience, it’s awkward to butt in and say “yep, I got it”.