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)

Discussion mechanisms

  • 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: ]

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]

Current Agenda

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 although we also have 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)
  • 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

Posting team meeting times (wolftune)

  • wolftune: outdated:
  • wolftune: not public:
  • wolftune: what can we make more public?
  • smichel: Public:
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.