Meeting — January 27, 2020
Attendees: wolftune, alignwaivers, salt, mray, smichel, msiep,
Discourse (over past week):
- Signups: 2 -> 1
- New Topics: 4 -> 8
- Posts: 22 -> 54
Reminders on best-practice meeting habits
Use chat in etherpad (and add your name)
- “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.
- “>” as an indicator of understanding someone and the point can be concluded, please move on
- three discussion mechanisms: hand symbols (above), call for a round (and vary the order), open discussion
- “???” on the etherpad means the notetaker missed something and needs assistance capturing what was said
- aim for shorthand / summary / key points (not transcript)
Review previous meeting feedback
- smichel: reactions to messages are nice, maybe embrace that more
- salt: awful tech, made especially hard
- mray: nice meeting otherwise
- wolftune: impressive that we were all able to sit through it
- alignwaivers: glad we tried it, good to be open to new ideas
Last meeting next-steps review
Alternatives to chatting on mumble (alignwaivers)
- NEXT STEP (alignwavers): Test before next meeting
- Mumble seems best, other tests not promising
- Did you check on enabling audible notifications in etherpad?
- There is a plugin
- NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): ping iko about enabling audio notifications (with link to plugin)
LFNW (Salt) (continued from previous meeting) https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/outreach/-/milestones/5
- NEXT STEP (alignwavers/smichel): Populate new milestone with tasks from previous milestone that are still relevant
Discourse Announcement Milestone https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/outreach/-/milestones/4 (alignwaivers)
- smichel: We’ve done all the prep tasks, but haven’t actually promoted the forum very much.
- salt: looks like theres a task missing to do the announcement, question of whether we are happy with email replies
- wolftune: can discuss changes to forum as it comes up, posted blog post and on social media, generally good practice to keep promoting snowdrift.coop
- salt: if no issues, milestone can be closed
- NEXT STEPS (wolftune) [DONE]: I closed it
CiviCRM? Volunteer recruiting (wolftune)
- wolftune: just wanted an update. There was a question between Salt and OSU?
- salt: github was being with seeing issues, kind of stalled out - was hoping conversation would jumpstart
- NEXT STEPS (salt): ping OSUOSL
- Salt: I do have outstanding tasks, but they’re captured.
- wolftune: ideally have as a way for other people could pick up the slack
- salt: going to be in Boston for that fri - sunday (March 13-15)
- wolftune: now we know you’re going, we should post about it in our events. Micky Metts (newly joined Director on Snowdrift.coop Board) is probably going to be there, is based in Boston
- NEXT STEP: Create discourse thread with tags, etc
- NEXT STEP (salt): ping Micky to let her know you’ll be attending
- smichel: planning on going as well but don’t have a ticket yet
- NEXT STEP (smichel): Sign up for libreplanet
- salt: would be good to have stickers stocked up to promote
- smichel: I have some stickers left I could bring
- wolftune: maybe in the same discourse thread, but should discuss how to make good use of time, what can other team members do to help
- smichel: Mimi and Eunice stickers? Should I bring
- wolftune: It’s a place we need to be a little sensitive, case-by-case basis. Don’t support the idea of dropping them. Hopefully it will just fly under the radar.
- salt: there’s still questions about this because our shirts and branding uses them - should have a readied response
- wolftune: a good point to emphasize that art has some stance on its own, we don’t throw out all art/music/culture because of context (not that we mean to be insensitive or avoid the tensions)
- make sure to know the official Snowdrift.coop stance https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/communications/mimi-eunice and be explicit about what is a personal opinion outside that (if brought up at all)
- DECISION: Bring them, but have a response ready if the conversation comes up.
Team Agreements (alignwaivers) https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/individual-collective-accountability-agreements-for-team-members/1383/11
- NEXT STEPS (alignwavers): incorporate feedback from this meeting, make a formal proposal of the commitment text (add: “…explicitly directed to me”) ROUND
- msiep: generally respond but missing some white space, doesn’t think ‘all snowdrift related messages’ is specific enough - could be ambiguous: maybe “snowdrift messages directed at me”
- smichel & mray: seems good
- salt: I participated in formulating it, it’s decent
- alignwaivers: agree with msiep about more specific about wording
- wolftune: think its a totally good starting point: wondering if this is complete enough, one thing to get affirmation from those present. Once it becomes clear what it means to be/become a team member, is this what we need, or do we need more.
- salt: with extra phrasing, think this is what we are looking for. Lacking an explicit: if you can’t agree to it what happens
- wolftune: don’t need to specify a mechanism besides a conversation about getting back in integrity if there’s a break — have a conversation with team member, what would it take to get back on the team if failure
- smichel: team members ought to be expected to have understanding or gain understanding of basic concepts and principles
- salt: concerned about the lack of explicit
- wolftune: Want to emphasize, there can be specific things, like reading the Code of Conduct — we expect that of everybody, but could be referenced in team agreement?
- smichel: don’t think it’s necessary to rereference something in that instance (where it’s expected of everyone already) - would rather air on the side of brevity
- wolftune: there’s a potentially separate thing of “steps to become a team member” (and when / how do we invite new team members)
- NEXT STEPS(alignwaivers): use the proposal mechanism to implement
- wolftune: maybe incoporating new team members should also include proposal consensus from current team. (possible next step for starting conversation of inviting new team members)
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): Start a conversation about the process for inviting someone to the team [DONE https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/when-and-how-to-invite-new-team-members/1457 ]
- wolftune: maybe could have something along the lines of ‘participating in consensus proposals’?
- wolftune: Should set some expectation of what “respond to messages” means? eg, how many? What types of messages? Maybe a list separately about the sorts of things to expect? (e.g. that there is a Team area of forum at least)
- alignwaivers: If we get a lot of messages directed at one person, it’s implied that nobody would abuse that… I’m wary of that, each time I ping someone
- Salt: I think there’s a tendency to overdocument these things, that makes them inflexible. I like where we’re at right now.
- wolftune: you’ve convinced me, should go in direction of ‘this is good enough to try’
- mray: I think we could use a descriptive headline, that puts in one sentence what the entire agreement is about.
- msiep: maybe add the words “explicitly directed at me” — want to avoid “Anybody have thoughts on _____?” situation where now everyone has to respond.
- Salt: I hear what you’re saying,
- alignwaivers: here’s the issue related to this https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/governance/issues/57
- smichel: want to propose that we start (just pick one) and see how it goes, if its bad we can reiterate
- msiep: if it’s a poll, there has to be an explicit way of requesting response vs “input would be great” (using @, rather than just an open-ended question)
- Salt: I think that’s built in to the “preferred communication method” part. We can further bring up concerns etc. during the proposal consent process
- alignwaivers: I agree with Michael, being clear about needing a response or not is important distinction
- wolftune: agree with salt with all the concerns, dont want to be too precise, can clarify things (how we communicate, whether someone was explicitly requesting a response) with each other as they arise
- salt: a lot of can be addressed with consensus???
- msiep: ‘using preferred communication method’ helps clarify if that’s how we are going to use it
- smichel: This is preferred communication method: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/team-member-contact-info/1083
- wolftune: we could link to the above - broadly speaking, you can write the manual “for how we each (individually) want to operate”
Status update: site deployment, CI/CD! (wolftune)
- wolftune: we have site updated, deployment is working! Thanks to chreekat’s recent work (photm too)
meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions round
- mray: question: can we remove the matrix meeting channel? [salt says ‘not yet’] my impression about using text before speaking keeps me from participating a bit
- smichel: liking mumble more than jitsi, chat in etherpad worked well, miss having the noise. Would still be interested in exploring matrix (esp. with reactions)
- msiep: feel similarly - so far, raising hand works but getting accustomed to it
- wolftune: good meeting, dont know how to get better at it but preventing topics to specific scope and avoiding tangents
- alignwaivers: agree to keep matrix open, suggest trying it next week, as in mray’s point, maybe a bit less-strict about hand-raise text etc
- salt: really liked number of people here, agreed there was some tangents that were avoidable, sympathize with the problems of handraising from mray, opposed to using anything untested