resources/meetings/2020/

resources/meetings/2020/2020-06-12-meeting

Meeting — June 12th, 2020

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

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

Metrics

Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 1 -> 1

  • New Topics: 1 -> 3

  • Posts: 14 -> 9

  • DAU/MAU: 32% -> 27%

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

Notetaking

  • “???” in notes means something missed, please help capturing what was said

  • aim for shorthand / summary / key points (not transcript)

Review previous meeting feedback

  • 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

Last meeting next-steps review

Mozilla Incubators app update and… Grants!!!

  • 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 [CAPTURED in updated https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/design/-/issues/108]

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers) ping team members for info

How to use Mumble

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

Decision process updating etc

  • 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 [CAPTURED https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/governance/-/issues/69]

CiviCRM milestones/issues updated in the planning-roadmap backlog

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

Current Agenda

Embracing the voluntary-tax framing / pitch / messaging (wolftune)

  • maybe relevant issue: Better communicate the scale of our mission

  • wolftune’s pre-meeting note-to-self: besides the question of just a clear pitch (which is the priority), this brings up potential (low-priority) long-term ideas around mimicking other tax models like income-percentage or even progressive brackets

  • Salt: I think this framing is valuable; if someone is engaged long enough, I almost always bring this up. It has a good flow: Public goods -> taxing -> issues with taxing -> how we’re different. However, I generally don’t start with this framing. Also, (1) A couple years ago people were framing FLO software as “public software”, and (2) ???

  • MSiep: Major difference with taxes: who pays? Usually defined by geography; people only pay taxes for local roads. Analogy breaks down; what determines who pays? (??? – Because of geography, people pay for things they don’t support). I’d rather frame it as a better solution to solve the same sort of problems we normally use taxes for.

    • (salt) this is why I try to start with what taxes are and agreeing with the problems of them, instead of trying to actually calling it something like taxes

    • (salt) re:The framing about taxes applying to a geographic area, we are trying to fund things that potentially benefit “all of humanity”

  • smichel: Others covered my points.

  • Adroit: agreed “tax” has a negative connotation. Eg, another definition of “to tax”: make heavy demands on (someone’s powers or resources). “she knew that the ordeal to come would tax all her strength”.

  • Adroit: here’s an idea, ask upfront how they feel about taxes. Chances are, the parts they like, Snowdrift has, and the parts they don’t like, Snowdrift has a better method

  • msiep: Key cool thing is that crowdmatching enables everyone who /wants/ X to exist to collectively fund it, which is very unlike taxes

  • wolftune: Today, I am asking: Are we sacrificing effectiveness by tiptoeing around this too much? We have a lot of (long-winded) references.

  • wolftune: Yes, we might lose some people, but many (eg, libertarians) come around

  • Salt: discussion of tax shouldn’t be taboo, but framing us as “voluntary taxation” may do us harm

  • smichel: Can have multiple framings simultaneously. “From this perspective…”

  • wolftune: potential filter questions for pitching to various people (who already know certain aspects)

  • wolftune: If losing some people by using the best pitch we have, worthwhile

  • smichel: I think ideal approach on an individual basis

  • wolftune: “If other people didn’t pay taxes, I wouldn’t want to pay taxes.” is very clear.

  • wolftune: I’m just saying, let’s take the risk; we should allow this framing (at all).

  • Call for round: Do you approve ???

    • msiep: Yes, especially targeted messaging.

    • smichel: sure let’s try it why not.

    • Salt: I approve with the hesitation that this is extra time and work for UX / UI people. Want a next step.

    • alignwaivers: I think it makes sense to try out.

    • Adroit: +1

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Capture this somewhere? Open gitlab issue

  • NEXT STEP ((wolftune): Capture the idea of targeted messages, relating to website content and direct outreach

Consider updates to current roadmap phase: governance roles? pitch / how-it-works update plans? (wolftune)

  • wolftune: Wasn’t sure if I should bring this up at meeting. Largely for msiep.

  • wolftune: We had this roadmap idea for what we’ll do this month. There was work done on better how-it-works pages. Is there a chance to move that up, try to make some progress on that topic this month?

  • msiep: I don’t have any issue with prioritizing that but my availability is limited at the moment

  • wolftune: Can you pick one realistic task to get done this month?

  • NEXT STEP (msiep): Look over https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/design/-/issues/108, make a decision about how much we can do this month to move this forward, and add that to https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/planning

Reevaluation of timeboxing, based on last meetings feedback (Salt)

  • Salt: There is a tension with going over the timeboxing, “give me a little more time”. Figuring out how to balance this.

  • Salt: Agile Coffee has a good mechanism: very strict, and collective votes with time proportional to how many thumbs up (vs down).

  • Salt: This is about strictness of boxes & expansion mechanism.

  • wolftune: I like the proposal, ideally also timekeeping involves notifications in advance of the end of time (some of that today). Not sure it needs to be absolutely strict.

  • adroit: the big issue of going over is not getting to other things, we could move topics that run over to the extra time to the end (if there is some)

  • salt: proposal from: use d, p, (- or _) to mean neutral

  • NEXT STEP (salt): add voting options to the pad

Grant applications and documenting (wolftune)

  • wolftune: Want to make sure we have a record of the grant captured somewhere (the work Athan did is documented)

  • salt: they should be in a private repo or (probably) civicrm, do we have a spot for fundraising?

  • wolftune: No, we talked about it but didn’t make a repo.

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): create a private repo for fundraiser (temporary) and put mozilla application there

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): add gitlab issue to transfer to civicrm when possible?

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Collect other records and put them there.

Getting funding needs more specified (wolftune)

  • wolftune: Major, ongoing tension: we are a fundraising platform. Most fundraising has a premise: goal-setting. “We need $x to do this”.

  • wolftune: I see no reason to put lines in particular spots – people are willing to burn out already working for free, if we can ease their burden a little that’s good.

  • wolftune: But a friend mentioned, often we grants, etc, need to set specific money goals

  • wolftune: friend’s suggestion was to ask someone familiar with the problem space for advice.

  • Salt: seems like a good topic on the new gitlab. We are in a weird space

  • wolftune: how much money would salt / other individuals need in order to be able to focus more on SD

  • wolftune: do we want to require outside projects to {{commit to?}} goals?

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): capture the need to talk to contacts who can give insights / ask for help


meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • smichel: timeboxing could be done sooner, at the agenda building, not one-off as they come up

  • Adroit: I appreciate the facilitation.

  • wolftune: thanks everyone, appreciate the engagement. Glad to keep iterating

  • alignwaivers: I got here late and felt a bit scattered.

  • salt: thought it went pretty well¸covered a lot, this meeting reinforces my sense of how much this matters