Meeting — December 30, 2019

Attendees: alignwaivers, wolftune, mray, iko, Salt


Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 1 -> 0
  • New Topics: 2 -> 3
  • Posts: 14 -> 13

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
  • “>” as an indicator of understanding someone and the point can be concluded

Review previous meeting feedback

  • wolftune: cutting meeting early potentially gives more time for coworking
  • smichel: suggest > as an indicator of understanding someone and the point can be concluded similar to d but that is a push to move on
  • it’s like a facilitation suggestion / note-to-facilitator because it can be hard to get a sense of being understood without in-person subtle signals
  • 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
  • wolftune: remember that we can all help with facilitation; speakers could ask for someone to reiterate what they’re saying or ask “is that clear?” to be sure they are understood
  • smichel17: Tensions: As a speaker or facilitator, it can be difficult to gauge whether the audience “got it” yet, and as the audience, it’s awkward to butt in and say “yep, I got it”.

Review last meeting’s agenda and action steps

## 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
- NEXT STEP (chreekat): deploy updated site, then after the updated site is deployed, run the backlog of crowdmatches 
- wolftune: has not heard from him but chreekat did reply to something in my email so he has seen the note

## Marking prominently that we're under-construction
- 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
- mray: mockup is finished, but not clear who it got handed off to. MSiep/iko moved issue to the code repo for implementation
- mray: it was allocated elsewere

## OSI Representative
- NEXT STEP (Salt): discuss with ehash about OSI representation (and connect wolftune and ehash)
- wolftune: was sent an email from patrick to send an update which he did (and ehash was copied on it), but hasn't heard a response

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

## 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
- NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): groom labels (planning this, forum post, issue for this), read

## coworking/time/engagement
- NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): check history of discussion for 'calendar of availability', do coworking with smichel17

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

  • wolftune posted driver-statement & proposal to forum
  • salt added thoughts and that helped clarify
  • wolftune: if we follow one simple rule i.e. items can’t be carried over and over, then it should be okay
  • salt: so each item in our carryover can be either captured/done, OR it needs to made an agenda item
  • wolftune: and if someone is absent, we make it an agenda item and then discuss what to do about it, e.g. contact person outside of meeting
  • salt: don’t want to deal with this for current meeting
  • salt: key point is start each meeting with a cleared-out carry-over section
  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): update forum post solution (maybe also somewhere on meeting structure wiki / governance if appropriate),
  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): add brief instruction in the meeting pad

Advanced agenda planning for meetings

  • salt: meetings go a lot better when everyone knows the agenda in advance
  • figure out a better way of doing this, a deadline for when the agenda has to be settled on
  • alignwaivers: I did put up a driver statement for it
  • wolftune: electing a secretary accountable for the agenda will help
  • alignwaivers: I’m excited to give it a shot, if people can bear with me while I figure out the process
  • wolftune: I nominate alignwaivers to be secretary
  • Salt: happy to have you on doing that
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): announce somewhere / forum post? that he’s taken on the role, plan how to prep agenda in advance etc. [DONE]

Simplifying meeting reminders

  • Salt: personally, I’d like to see an automated approach to this. there could be automated messages that link to the relevant artifacts, e.g. wiki/meeting notes, forum topic, gitlab issue
  • e.g. we don’t have to type !folks to get word out, it would be nice if people can add their names to a system to be reminded about meetings
  • wolftune: there’s something to having a shared calendar, knows people use ‘calendar invites’, etc
  • salt: the big thing is we don’t have any sort of system for a calendar since we don’t want to use google, maybe osu could set up a next cloud instance, but we have bigger priorites with them
  • wolftune: not sure how much of a priority this is, even though it would be nice
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): open gitlab issue to capture shared calendar and automated reminders suggestion

Engaging on forum

  • wolftune: I wish there was more engagement from community and from people in general, would be nice to see more activity, maybe we can take a round on what would help people engage more
  • mray: my impression seems to be that it’s just an effect of the project overall, and that reflects on the forums overall - the vicious circle of not enough going on isn’t interesting for other people, would be better for there to be stuff that’s actually happening
  • salt: my thought was the same, this isn’t a particular issue. there are ways of trying to get people engage, but part of it is if you don’t have people actively participating in the forum, it’s an issue of critical mass
  • wolftune: would like to see at least more people from the project acknowledging things helpful to get feedback, etc
  • wolftune: not sure I want to capture this beyond reminding people in attendance that it’s good to engage there, and glad to bring up this tension for now, thanks for discussion

Use of issues and MRs, repos

  • wofltune: had a long chat with iko about this - this came up in how I was asked to do my IEEE work
  • issues could/should be designed so they could be closed with merge requests
  • there’s even a button in gitlab now, it automatically opens a WIP: MR named based on the issue
  • this approach pushes us to capture the results in the repository. The merge means a documented history.
  • This isn’t strict but a good way to go moving forward as an ideal to keep in mind
  • salt: some more thinking on this maybe
  • iko: I guess it depends on how the developers operate, different teams might do things different. Suppose we trial the idea and see how it goes. Also, it’s not necessarily that every issue matches to a single merge request. Sometimes I bundle 2-3 issues into one MR. But I can see this working with documentation.
  • wolftune: acknowledged where iko is coming, don’t want to force everyone into using Git, that’s a potential barrier. But breaking the work into smaller chunks is often good, and this approach forces the issue to be clearly an actionable task.
  • iko: what about things that have no artifacts or deliverables checked to gitlab? e.g. tasks like making requests to an upstream, make a forum post, etc. how would the approach work in those cases?
  • wolftune: yeah, I would say we apply the approach in cases where it makes sense to do so
  • wolftune: also, the same general principle applies in that even though it’s not an MR, posting to the forum or writing an email is an equivalent concrete step outside of the issue itself
  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): integrate this concept into workflow in issue grooming guide
  • wolftune: waiting to hear back from a few people about Board, had a call with Lisha Sterling who I really think is an optimal fit (aligned, experienced, etc), all she knew about snowdrift before was something to do with coops and software freedom, but she’s really even more on board hearing the details more
  • wolftune: one more thing, mentioned this podcast with jim dethmer on the forum (the topic of misc links) about conscious leadership - been mentioning it to more people including Lisha most recently, and it has helped me personally with a lot of things lately
  • Salt: should we drop “decide where to capture outstanding tasks”?

meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions round

  • alignwaivers: maybe we could have a symbol or way to emphasize to note-taker/secretary if they missed or mistook something
  • alignwaivers: another situation, when someone gets nominated for something and a symbol for the nominated person to accept?
  • alignwaivers: maybe more often NEXT STEPS can be just capturing the tension / driver rather than already have a proposed action
  • iko: good meeting, I do appreciate the open chat time
  • mray: good meeting, good to make it on time. I’d appreciate it if we could somehow increase the call quality, don’t know if it’s compression or bad microphones but sometimes its really hard to follow what people are saying, could be a language barrier but the meeting could benefit from having clearer audio
  • wolftune: overall good meeting. I like what were doing to refine it, thanks to alignwaivers for taking wonderful notes. one thing, I’d like to see more of shorthand, we don’t need a dictation, we just want to capture the gist of the things people say.
  • salt: just feel like we spent longer on some things that wasn’t necessitated, a little annoyed by topics that didn’t have next steps and no trace of the author
  • salt: maybe put names next to agenda items, who claimed or brought it up