Meeting — June 5th, 2020

  • Attendees from last week: msiep, smichel, alignwaivers, salt, wolftune, adroit

  • Attendees (current): wolftune, salt, alignwaivers, smichel


Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 1

  • New Topics: 3 -> 1

  • Posts: 22 -> 14

  • DAU/MAU: 37% -> 32%

Snowdrift patrons: 121

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 you have something to say and puts you in the queue

    • “c/” or “?” means you have a clarifying question and jumps you to the top of the queue

    • “d” means thumbs up, encouragement, agreement, etc.

    • “>” mean you understand someone’s point, please move on

    • “d>” indicates feeling complete on an agenda item, ready to move on to

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

  • smichel: could’ve pushed my topics faster, were mainly for a subset of participants, but this worked

  • adroit: I’m happy with everything

  • wolftune: felt okay about it overall, balance of facilitating and participating seemed okay. Would be glad for feedback, and encourage everone to give each other feedback

  • msiep: meeting was fine

  • alignwaivers: good meeting, glad with the >>

  • salt: good meeting

  • mray: nice meeting, appreciate organization

Last meeting next-steps review

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers and everyone): try in this meeting, and post

Mozilla Incubators app update and… Grants!!!

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): make a post on discourse [DONE]

front-end dev – update process idea/feedback

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Write out this process as a proposal, get iko’s input [DONE]

front-end: navbar idea/feedback

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Investigate further, ping chreekat about implementation [DONE]

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Write this out in detail (esp. pros and cons), get iko’s input [DONE]

Shorten 48 hour late agenda window?

  • NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers): update the etherpad to reflect smichels proposal, consolidate two sections [DONE]

Globalsign cert renewal or OSUOSL by August

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): contact OSUOSL, (contact lance) say we have a deadline [DONE]

carry-over topic: Civi in roadmap

  • NEXT STEP (salt): decide civicrm goals in current phase [DONE]

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): bug salt to do this next week because it is time sensitive [DONE]

Current Agenda

Mozilla Incubators app update and… Grants!!! (alignwaivers)

  • planning to go ahead with putting in some application

  • need contact info for team members, skills, current organizations and links (suggested 2-4 team members who will put in substantial dedicated time)

  • grants exist separately as well

  • did an informal initial review (ping on Twitter), they didn’t really grasp the mechanism

    • suggest that we make more clear right up front: (A) what defines public goods and (B) why the mechanism makes sense (that more patrons wouldn’t mean going down in contribution amounts) and (C) the limit is not the point, the idea isn’t to reach and sit at it

  • wolftune: having a match limit isn’t a goal in itself: the mechanism is not about limits

  • smichel: I think they understand it but are skeptical of incentives

  • wolftune: I don’t they understand, and these items should be identified well as well as

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): finish applying (consult with Salt)

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): assure that we have clear issue (driver statement etc) capturing the need to overhaul the how-it-works page, including addressing all those immediate doubts from the feedback

  • Salt: do the 2-4 team members need to be American citizens?

  • alignwaivers: No, they have a form with space for multiple countries

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers) ping team members for info

How to use Mumble (Salt)

  • Salt: separate checkin rooms would be good for teaching people that moving rooms in mumble, otherwise we should just call checkin room the main room

  • smichel: Not sure how much benefit there is to moving rooms on checkin, but if we want to keep it we could move from root to check-in room after they check in

  • salt: propose we change the name to name room or not use checkin

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): change name of checkin room to “checked in” or “main meeting”, etc

Decision process updating etc (wolftune)

  • wolftune: forum has 4 topics related to decision process, fair amount of tension here. Lot of a noise around it. Would like to process some of it here sync

  • wolftune: photm started all with reference to sociocracys model (in a circle in person). Consented to initial proposal, but 25 tensions related to this. One is on the process of changes to proposal on forum vs discourse (which doesn’t work so well to see changes).

  • call for round: wolftune

    • align: Haven’t caught up. If there’s this many issues, each is addressable (maybe some controversial). Leaning towards iterations – don’t try to address all at once.

    • Salt: I also haven’t caught up, read everything I think but not processed. Want small, iterative revisions. parallel /bidirectional links between gitlab and discourse

    • smichel: agree with most of what’s been said. I don’t think we’ve used the process enough. Also for iterations, but think we should try it a few more times before changing again. A few changes might improve others, etc. Biggest issue for this revision is the amount of details

  • wolftune: there’s a big formatting issue. I have an issue with ‘we haven’t tried the process’ from smichel, bc most of the concerns were from people’s direct experiences, not a matter of a lack of trying it out.

  • wolftune: I think iteration should happen as quikly as possible, cause iteration itself takes time

  • smichel: proposal to draft only that one issue and iterate on others after

  • wolftune: can we make a distinction that an iterative process accepts a ‘concept’ without the wording / explicit language on implementation, and there will still be a process for drafting the explicit iteration

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): iterate on a proposal for how to more easily iterate on policies via gitlab, then use that updated process to iterate on all the other objections that have been raised

Async marking of last meeting next-steps reviews as agenda items or not to expedite (alignwaivers)

  • alignwaivers: Can we speed up the next-step review by marking in advance?

  • Salt/smichel: Yes, that’s what we currently should be doing, we just often forget to mark [done]

  • alignwaivers: What if there’s an additional next-step to capture?

  • Salt/smichel: Then add it as a new agenda item.

Quarterly Meeting Time Survey (Salt) <– hh:20 –>

  • salt: just want people to update their schedules

CiviCRM milestones/issues updated in the planning-roadmap backlog (wolftune)

  • wolftune: noticed salt updated top level stuff, but the backlog isn’t

  • salt: I need help grooming any of these gitlab issues (not updated on them). Knows how gitlab works but has been working on other aspects

  • wolftune: planning page: even if it doesn’t align with or link to gitlab, that you could look at and see if done or not, or ready to move forward and know next step.

  • wolftune: not a one to one ratio on planning page vs. gitlab issues

  • smichel: I wouldn’t suggest grooming next stage’s tasks, focus on current

  • NEXT STEP (salt): update planning page with current civi status

  • salt: Many of the open issues are in outreach but should be in ops. How to handle?

  • smichel: Ideally we should move them, if anyone has free time they can, but if they’re clear enough & you can find them it’s also OK to just do them and close them.

meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • alignwaivers: thanks

  • wolftune: feel like we accomplished a lot, wasn’t following chat but thanks to salt for keeping us on tracks

  • smichel: timebox evaluation round? - ran over a lot, wondering if we need to stick to timeboxing better, passing and not talking about it, either at the end or in between each item

  • Salt: (1) Agree on timeboxing, would like to be stricter, (2) Added 6-7 topics at start of meeting, that’s fine [implication?: but it would be nice if they were on the agenda earlier] (3) it’s a hard time right now, lots of “below the line”, meetings still valuable