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)

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.
  • “>” 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

Current Agenda

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)

  • NEXT STEP (alignwavers/smichel): Populate new milestone with tasks from previous milestone that are still relevant

Discourse Announcement Milestone (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
  • 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

LibrePlanet (salt)

  • 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 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 stance 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)

  • 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 ]
  • 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
  • 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:
  • 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