Meeting — May 15, 2020
- Attendees from last week: Salt, alignwaivers, wolftune, smichel, iko, MSiep, Adroit
- Attendees (current): msiep, alignwaivers, salt, smichel, wolftune
Discourse (over past week):
- Signups: 0 -> 0
- New Topics: 8 -> 0
- Posts: 60 -> 14
- DAU/MAU: 50% -> 39%
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 means something missed, please help capturing what was said
- aim for shorthand / summary / key points (not transcript)
Review previous meeting feedback
- iko: thanks
- alignwaivers: figuring out some of this streamlining stuff will be good in long run
- adroit: got a lot of things to read
- smichel: didn’t feel as effective, but bc distracted. Example that meetings best when everything is thought about in advance, in reverse (no prep this time)!
- msiep: good meeting, distracted myself, but thanks everybody
- Salt: meeting went well, nice to have end early - using feedback. Happy with softer timeboxing and baton-passing
- wolftune: I really liked that we got to the open chat, was a bit awkward that I brought up topics that wasn’t sure how to move forward exactly, need to figure out better ways to ping people to be aware of agenda items in advance
- smichel: I’ve brought up before, the idea that to get something on the meeting agenda, make a forum post first is a good idea & link it from agenda. Not required for tensions or other stuff where the person bringing it up is vague on what needs doing and needs help working through it, but for concrete topics or where there’s background info..
Last meeting next-steps review
- NEXT STEP (wolftune, MSiep): Monday coworking on roadmap
Design implementation documentation
- NEXT STEP (smichel and others): Review this doc, annotate with current pain points https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/snowdrift/-/issues/183
- NEXT STEP (adroit): capture this and put it into ???git [captured same as above]
Role clarifications, updates, documention
- NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers, wolftune): schedule coworking session [DONE]
Carryovers for smichel from past meeting
- NEXT STEP (smichel): groom via forum or have a working session, identify tensions, driver, proposal through sociocracy process [I don’t know what this is about]
- NEXT STEP (smichel): consolidate all the meeting times posting locations https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/governance/-/issues/67
- NEXT STEP (smichel+wolftune) [due: friday]: Figure out as much of the roapmap as we can that doesn’t need feedback from team (eg, strict dependencies between items), then recruit the team to help with planning, next meeting (on friday)
- (pre-meeting note) wolftune: should we capture general issue grooming and/or recruiting/outreach (like blogging or other)?
- (pre-meeting note) wolftune: what in this phase will Salt aim to get on the CiviCRM progress?
- (pre-meeting note) wolftune: any feedback about how to improve this overall roadmap?
- wolftune: have an updated wiki page (not perfect but huge improvement). Welcome for input
- smichel: two things people (besides me and wolftune) can do: evaluate if things in current phase reasonable to do (or is there more you could do)? And is there anything we missed?
- salt: Would like to have a name for time dileneations, rather than ‘quarters’ that are vague
- wolftune: This is different than milestones (more semantic ideas) - roadmap is different type of focus
- smichel: consider this to be more like sprints on a long time scale
- salt: Understood, but all things in a ‘phase’ have to do with something: something similar to a gantt chart
- wolftune: skeptical of value of something like a gantt chart, still clarifying balance between roadmap and other things (already complex as is)
- wolftune: roadmap is sort of a minimal check in “this is where we are at”, picking top priorities
- salt: not clear how civi fits in here
- wolftune: I’d be okay if civi isn’t on the roadmap at all, but if there was an agreement to have civi done by a certain phase to be accountable for
- salt: I do know what could be accomplished on civi by certain times
- msiep: it seems like keeping this simple is ideal
- wolftune: terminology? “roadmap” vs /planning ?
- Call for round:
- smichel: wasted energy in past trying to get too explicit in mapping. I think not planning too far ahead is important
- msiep, alignwaivers: looks good to me, right amount of simplicity
- salt: looks good, not too much structure. agree that having gitlab related items would be ideal but not immediately necessary
- NEXT STEP (alignwaivers, wolftune): capture this in prominent places, make sure people know about it
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): Consent process on forum, everyone’s on board with the roadmap
- welcoming new guest: Amruth (loveliesbleeding on IRC/Matrix etc)
- software engineer, primarily with React but getting into Haskell and FP
- [did round introducing others in the meeting]
- NEXT STEP (smichel and wolftune): give Amruth a tour of project and codebase
OSI update (wolftune)
- wolftune: Elana gave OSI boad an update about snowdrift.coop. Came to light that incubation project is not to give long term advice: would like us to shoot for september . This is quite a shift from the previous attitudes of OSI folks. Thinking to change our graduation criteria to having a formal bylaws in place instead of a full implementation.
- wolftune: to clarify, september is their new proposed graduation point from being an incubator project
- salt: the help they can provide is getting us on mailing list, blog posts etc. Not in a position to help directly besides that and helping with accountability
- wolftune: we haven’t explicitly drawn up a new graduation criteria, aiming to graduate with new criteria rather than dropping out
- NEXT STEP (wolftune): draft updated graduation goals, get confirmation internally, email Elana about updates, push toward maybe slightly later than Sept grad date, and ask specifically for her help with accountability and staying on track to successful graduation
updating pad during meeting (Salt)
- Salt: Tension at meeting start about adding items to the pad. There was some back-and-forth
- It was disruptive to have that at the time.
- Meeting notes are history of development of our process, valid to capture as feedback.
- wolftune: imo the problem was two people trying to take care of it at the same time; normally whoever takes care of it can decide where to capture
- wolftune: better to keep discussion of the notes in the chat rather than the pad itself
- no next steps
meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round
- Salt: Maybe a little longer than needed, but thanks
- msiep: +1
- wolftune: Nice to have a new person, missed iko/mray, glad mray sent regrets, casual non-strict timeboxing worked but let’s keep timeboxing in general
- Amruth: Meetings seem very functional, excited to get involved