Meeting — May 1, 2020
- Attendees from last week: alignwaivers, smichel, iko, Adroit, MSiep, wolftune
- Attendees (current): Salt, alignwaivers, iko, Adroit, wolftune, smichel17
Discourse (over past week):
- Signups: 0 -> 0
- New Topics: 8 -> 9
- Posts: 84 -> 105
- DAU/MAU: 58% -> 49%
Snowdrift patrons: 119
Reminders on best-practice meeting habits
- Review previous meeting notes especially when absent!
- “NEXT STEPS” should be clear and actionable for assignee (who should double-check this for themselves)
- Use chat in etherpad (and add your name)
- open discussion
- call for a round (“pass the mic” style, facilitator makes sure no one is skipped)
- hand symbols
- “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
Facilitation by topic
- There is a leader for each topic (generally the person who raised the topic), and the facilitator will assist the topic leader in the discussion via the etherpad chat
- “???” in notes measn something missed, please help capturing what was said
- aim for shorthand / summary / key points (not transcript)
Review previous meeting feedback
- adroit: wasn’t active on the agenda items here but have been participating in discourse, getting lots of notifications there
- wolftune: glad things worked out with me showing up late, well-focused on topics which was nice¸ (awkward that salt was here in text only)
- iko: good meeting
- smichel: it was good and we can end 5 minutes early
- msiep: good meeting
- alignwaivers: glad we got through items and it’s nice to be done early
Last meeting next-steps review
LFNW video recording (alignwaivers)
- NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): will post a draft sometime next week
Team Agreements Follow up (alignwaivers)
- NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): follow up with others who haven’t responded yet
Team member titles vs roles and presentation (wolftune)
- NEXT STEP (msiep): driver statement for showing team and directors on the main site about page [done: https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/design/-/issues/117 ]
Optional video chat (alignwaivers)
- NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): mention video chat in the etherpad as an option
- NEXT STEP (smichel): add link to shared calendar to discourse post about meetings [DONE]
Top-level prioritised wishlist (chreekat/iko)
- pre-meeting summary (iko): chreekat’s suggestion. he asked if there is a top-level, prioritised wishlist of things to be accomplished, e.g. ops fully migrated to osu osl, add necessary features, onboard a partner project. his opinion is we need it to have momentum.
- I think it would be a good idea for a slightly different reason. to take stock of current position, what gaps exist, what resources are immediately needed.
- the closest thing currently is https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/planning although we also have https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/community/how-to-help but is it prioritised and up-to-date?
- note from wolftune: a stronger roadmap is a key item requested by OSI and that the Snowdrift Board is also working towards
- smichel: I think the wiki page is still up-to-date, but there’s no prioritised. as wolftune mentioned, a roadmap was requested of us by OSI
- smichel: we were planning to meet on the 9th but may meet tomorrow (or within the week) to have more prioritized
- wolftune: not strictly a board task, but maybe they will weigh in, figure out what the issues are (e.g. if team is having trouble with it)
- salt: a bit confused about the separation of responsibilities between board and team?
- smichel: this is on the board’s agenda … [audio cut out]
- iko: is this process defined by the board? how will this process work, who will actually partcipiate in the process, add items and prioritise them?
- wolftune: I’d say no, the board, the team members agree: here are the core requirements, here’s who it’s mapped out and what the plan is
- the board’s role is to hold the team accountable/help - team could draft, and the board could agree that’s good, but also give feedback - it’s not clear enough, can we help?
- smichel: fits into the sociocracy stuff, it should fit in to team members roles and how they see themselves fit in - roadmap should be guide (order can be individually decided)
- wolftune: I think it should be about accountability: chreekat asking for the team to have clarity on what to do, clear for newcomers as well
- board says, how are you doing, are we on track (basically same with OSI): core point - this needs to happen, no one 100% clear and we need to figure out what to do in order to make this happen.
- I’d be happy if we had an example from other teams etc, would also be good to have a nitty-gritty working session to hash this out
- I suggest going through the sociocracy process, start with a driver statement, etc.
- smichel: wasn’t there something related on the forum that photm drafted?
- wolftune: possibly. the next step is to discuss the meta process then arrive at a concrete task to come up with the actual prioritised list
- smichel: I can broadcast the meeting date if any team member wants to attend
- NEXT STEP (smichel): groom via forum or have a working session, identify tensions, driver, proposal through sociocracy process
- NEXT STEP (smichel, alignwaivers, wolftune and anyone else from team): meet on May 9 or within the week to prioritise items?
- NEXT STEP (smichel): Announce board meeting when it is decided
Backend dev for cross-functional ux team (iko) (:07-08)
- pre-meeting summary (iko): based on previous attempts in ui/ux design implementation, there needs to be a cross-functional ux team to work from design/vision building to the coding.
- we have a team, but it seems to be missing one role on the dev side.
- I’m looking for an experienced dev, not necessarily with haskell but system backend. some familiarity with the codebase would be a plus. basically the dev can provide input, help with sanity check at the requirements level, before any wireframes/prototypes are finalised.
- e.g. chreekat would be great, I asked him. he’s currently busy with ops migration and also has funding mechanism development lined up. this could be on his list eventually, the possibility is not discounted. there is a feature design and enhancement I’d like to see before go through for implementation before onboarding another project (design#116, with driver statement, mockups and a bit of prototyping so far, which chreekat did an initial check and said was okay). however, I’m not sure what the timing would be like.
- is there anyone who can do this and maybe confer with chreekat in the process? some other arrangement?
- note from wolftune: this should be among our main recruitment efforts, define the scope of the role so we can describe it clearly to potential volunteers
- note from Adroit: I suggest we recruit via the homepage - List of who we’re looking for - also serves to indicate status
- wolftune: before a lot of work goes into design, should have someone to look at the interaction of design and implementation.
- could try to go through the sociocracy process to fill the role. In my experience, good to identify this role and recruit specifically
- smichel: it’s possible to check with people who have done code review in the past
- wolftune: there’s quite a backlog of people we could search through to see if we can recruit from
- iko: sounds good, thanks. not urgent right now but eventually, not to put too many tasks on chreekat
- wolftune: urgency relative but I’m hesitant to recruit when we DON’T have this specific role
- NEXT STEPS (wolftune): define new role, then recruit for it
Update on Board progress (wolftune) (:10)
- wolftune: board had another meeting, usually quarterly. Had some concerns around not having as much discussion between last meeting
- using signal collectively more which is good.
- wolftune: they posted intros on the forum so please welcome. Board willing to help with the roadmap stuff for OSI (accountability, etc) https://community.snowdrift.coop/g/board
- also getting bylaws drafted so we can have those bylaws
- NEXT STEP (team): engage with board members via intro posts in welcome category on discourse https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/about-the-welcome-category/527
Posting team meeting times (wolftune)
- wolftune: outdated: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/remote-coworking-weekly-routine/1281
- wolftune: not public: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/team-availability-and-weekly-meeting-details/1345
- wolftune: what can we make more public?
- smichel: Public: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/weekly-all-hands-on-deck-check-in-meetings/1010
- wolftune: the team posts that list when we have the time: we don’t want the links for people to update availability public, just the meeting times themselves
- adroit: this one thread [linked by smichel] seems pretty great
- wolftune: smichel, can you make sure there’s one place we can link all of the things?
- smichel: yeah, I can consolidate them
- salt: I think another question here is, we’re still all okay with these meetings being open?
- wolftune: yeah, and we’ll see if anyone shows up
- alignwaivers: it would be ideal for newcomers to have a place to see the meeting times without searching everywhere
- wolftune: it should be pinned somewhere on the forum
- adroit: Or linked from the homepage, as above
- wolftune: is it possible to get an box that get’s automaticall updated
- smichel: The place for newcomers is https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/resources
- smichel: For anyone who wants to be involved in the team
- smichel: (Also for existing team members wanting to know where everything is if you lose bookmarks or something)
- NEXT STEP (smichel): consolidate all the meeting times posting locations
Sociocracy processes via the forum (wolftune)
- wolftune: general discussion, getting everyone clear. see also https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/reviewing-the-process-for-consent-decisions/1497/29
- wolftune: just want to make sure people are aware of the discussion and how we are using discourse for sociocracy process, etc.
- think it’s going well but wanted to be clear and remind people of the link
- alignwaivers: speaking of minor edits and the tech we’re using …
- wolftune: Want there to be consistent, and not overly bureaucratic. Don’t have time now but want to have conversations to assess how people are feeling etc
- iko: small feedback about forum proposals (e.g. based on team agreements proposal process) — whether it would work to have a feedback period for a draft then one poll at the end, instead of multiple successive polls which led to some confusion and need to check/vote multiple times on the same document. not sure if the same will apply to other sociocracy processes
- iko: I see the poll as the official voting motion, and any minor or major adjustments should happen before the poll
- wolftune: I see what you mean. we’ll work out the initial process for team agreements where there was proposal, addressing how to draft, etc
- alignwaivers: link to this discussion already happening https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/consent-decision-allow-minor-edits-during-consent-decisions/1523
- wolftune: proposal: post a proposal on the forum. A proposal to have the proposal, a time for posting feedback before the official voting poll
Team Agreements Follow up (alignwaivers) (:27)
- alignwaivers: consented: iko, adroit, msiep, mray, salt, wolftune, smichel
- wolftune: we’ll have to weed people off that haven’t responded (given reasonable efforts to contact them)
- wolftune: do we have a summary of the decision posted? we don’t necessarily need a formal process, but will ask people as we onboard them
- alignwaivers: I can move ahead and post the formal agreement
- wolftune: just post it we don’t have to officially agree
- wolftune: also do we have it documented somewhere
- Adroit: TL3 is given dynamically based on current involvement level, could be used (once adjusted down) to decide who to require a response from
- NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): update team agreement document (as accepted proposal) on the forum and on git as an official documeent
meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round
- adroit: sounded like a decently productive meeting - I didn’t care for the timeboxing, can’t account for how much other people talk. The baton-passing fills an important need of saying when you’re done talking, but maybe something like “over” when we’re done talking could satisfy that though
- smichel: terrible, had connection issues the whole time. first half was fine. I think baton passing just takes getting used to and we should stick with it for while. [timeboxing] I’d be more concerned with the reverse — that it might provide pressure to use the whole timebox even when it’s not needed
- alignwaivers: I had a few dropouts for a few seconds, it would be helpful for people to note in chat if they previously dropped out
- wolftune: I find the pass the baton is kinda too hard to follow sometime, have to consistently remind people
- would suggest going back to a faciltator and varying the order. the timeboxing was helpful to stay focused. thanks everyone for doing whatever they can. felt a bit rushed
- iko: good meeting - glad we cleared up some governance process questions. thanks to notetaker/facilitator, very good as usual
- Salt: the shared facilitation will hopefully improve as everyone gets better at facilitation, also anyone can ask for the main facilitator to facilitate. Time boxing is a good idea but was a bit wishful, needs to be more realistic. We need to get better at starting right on time. Having video was nice. I need to figure out a way to eat or get up, but this was my only hole in the schedule for a very long block. I really like the talkingstick passing for rounds.