Meeting — June 26th, 2020

  • Attendees from last week: wolftune, Adroit, msiep, smichel

  • Attendees (current): wolftune, smichel, alignwaivers, mray, Salt, msiep


Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 0

  • New Topics: 3 -> 4

  • Posts: 10 -> 13

  • DAU/MAU: 27% -> 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.

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

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


  • timebox each topic, rounded to nearest 5min., settled during agenda confirmation

  • format is

  • at topic beginning, convert the :mm to expected end time

  • at timebox end, “thumb polls” may add 5 minutes at a time

  • hand symbols

    • “^” approve, extend the timebox

    • “v” disagree, move onto the next topic

    • “.” neutral

Facilitation by topic

  • Each topic facilitated by topic lead with main facilitator help


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

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

Review previous meeting feedback

  • adroit: Felt meeting was slow to start (lots of dead air), then got going later. Maybe to do with number of people here?

  • smichel: Please remove authorship colors from pad meta-information. Get to point faster, Aaron — what is the topic, define it at the start; missed Salt for facilitation. Notetaking easiest for people not actively talking (so I took over when msiep was engaging otherwise)

  • msiep: thanks for helping w/ note-taking (maybe should have backup note-taker?), agreed on other counts, timeboxing is helpful

  • wolftune: I had push-to-talk issues, should consider changing that setting; I used sand-timers on my desk, just getting into the habit of using them. It’s nice to have an actual time-keeper (person) — I (unofficially) held that role today. I noticed I made formal topic for what could have instead been better as open-discussion, maybe we should consider noting less-defined tensions or topics as for open-discussion so that we purposely take less agenda time and thus have open-discussion where those items can be brought up casually (of course, no expectation of necessarily getting to them)

Last meeting next-steps review

Tracking work on highest-level concepts / pitches etc.

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Post something on the forum about the tax framing

(Lack of) team responsiveness on the forum

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Capture: Consent process doesn’t currently have a way to say “I don’t have time to express my objection but I’m not consenting” [DONE]

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Close “participate in consent decisions” on the forum as not accepted [DONE]

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Check in with others on 1:1 basis to ask why they didn’t respond to @team mentions [CAPTURED]

Meeting time into summer

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Ask people to update their availability for summer once it’s known [DONE]

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

  • NEXT STEP (msiep): Add how-it-works update to the roadmap in some fashion [DONE]

Fundraising, needs, clarity, working-in-the-zone

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Write out more concrete plan for specifc goals of one-on-ones to answer these questions, then do one-on-ones. [CAPTURED]

Smichel’s next week focused on Snowdrift

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Post this on forum so others can see this & respond [DONE]

Current Agenda

quick note on meetings (smichel)

  • smichel: The goal is, I’d like to start meetings on time. To facilitate this, I’d like if we all joined mumble a few minutes before the official start. But people shouldn’t be expected to talk before the actual start.

  • smichel: I made the “Waiting Room” room in mumble. Everyone will be automatically muted when they join; also everyone can mute/unmute themselves (or others)

  • smichel: This way, you can join and go to the waiting room, until the actual meeting start time.

  • Salt: I like the idea, but sometimes I can’t do that — eg, last quarter, I had a meeting that ended right as this one started.

  • wolftune: it’s about clarity on agreements. make it clear if you can be expected to be ontime generally or not etc. I’m gonna work on time keeping

self-presentation overhaul (mray)

  • mray: want to go over how much work required for the ‘how it works page’. Might be necessary to modify the home page, and general page structure.

  • wolftune: I agree. Been thinking about how to best frame a pitch for snowdrift.

  • salt: concerned about overhaul in terms of timelines, vs how much can be done with landing page

  • mray: want to raise awareness of this as an issue, we are running into problems etc.

  • mray: It’s important to find a realistic scope of what’s feasible, who’s willing to play what role in this [development?]

  • wolftune: I think this question is bigger than “what do we put on the website?”. Starts with getting in touch with ourselves, “what are our goals, and motivations etc.”

  • msiep: sounds like a good idea but I don’t have that much capacity beyond quick checkins right now

  • mray: can we do next Monday?

  • wolftune: Sometimes group discussions are beneficial, other times 1:1. Could collect stuff bit by bit in smaller discussions

  • Salt: I think 1:1’s would slow this down, everyone in one space is important.

  • wolftune: would be helpful for mray to prepare/organize meeting

  • NEXT STEP (mray): set up meeting for discussion, come up with agenda

roadmap, Q2 ending etc (wolftune)

  • wolftune: this is the last formal meeting of this phase (see Next meeting (or separately planned) we should evaluate current phase and plan next

  • salt: we should at least have this as a topic at next meeting (first of a new quarter)

  • wolftune: should consider what we want to work on in the next quarter

  • wolftune: want to remind about goals of current quarter as we wrap up: i.e. design, cleaning up css, a guide

  • wolftune: want to give some friendly pressure that there’s a few days to wrap up tasks, or change

  • smichel: I don’t think we should change the goals for whatever phase we’re in, gives us better perspective for planning next phase. eg, if wasn’t a realistic amount of work

  • salt: if people wanted help succeeding on a task, they should bring it up as a topic (such as here, the last meeting of the quarter, etc)

civicrm coworking and update (Salt)

  • Salt: I am feeling pressure to get this done and have time, but hard to get stuff done alone.

  • Salt: Maybe one roadblock: live civi version is outdated, concerned about putting data in it.

  • wolftune: My impression: civi not being updated for new drupal version

  • salt: there’s a known fix, just needs to be done manually. Mixed feelings about doing sysadmin work, when the idea of OSUOSL was that we could offload it.

  • wolftune: let’s err on the side of giving these tasks to OSUOSL until they say they can’t handle, including this task to manually patch civi

  • wolftune: is this blocking all civi work for you?

  • Salt: All I need to do is upload a dump. Not the only blocker but close to it.

  • wolftune: I could help draft email to OSUOSL, “We have goal, get civi updated by end of month, we need this patched.”…

  • Salt: I know next steps, asking for coworking time, not help

  • NEXT STEP (salt, wolftune, smichel): co work on this

update availability (Salt)

  • salt: reminder for everyone to update, I’m waiting on one more thing before I do so, should be flexible

  • Salt: decide when to cut off updates and decide on new meeting time

  • wolftune: proposal to try for sunday and see if there are any objections

  • Salt: @smichel, you were doing this, don’t want to step on your toes here

  • smichel: I only did it b/c it needed doing, feel free to take over

  • Salt: one concern would be pushing this so quickly in a weekend bc people are sometimes out of town.

  • smichel: Adroit needs to be pinged separately since he’s not in the @team discourse group (can’t see that category)

  • NEXT STEP (salt): Poke people to get schedule updated by Monday

  • wolftune: going in the direction (away) from complex asynchronous decisions

  • smichel: and having more decision making in meetings

  • wolftune: there was good feedback about difficulties in navigating all things happening and how they are tracked on discourse

  • wolftune: there’s an issue with us tracking things in different places

  • smichel: gitlab is where it should be captured

  • wolftune: when there is a decision in meeting, someone could capture and follow up with those absent to see if there’s concerns

  • wolftune: we have to agree we are dropping the previous agreement and moving towards

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): use old process to consent process decision to drop the previous arrangement and iterate on newer simpler processes

  • smichel: I don’t know if we need notes here.

  • alignwaivers: i’m filtering mostly

  • salt: glad photms been so active, especially on this topic

  • wolftune: want to make sure new process does not exclude people who aren’t at meetings

  • smichel: if you want a decision to be made in a meeting, can put input in beforehand.

  • wolftune: I think we start simpler at first, basic iteration is just in meetings, but that’s a good idea

meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • smichel: tempted to give meeting-feedback before the end, would be good to have formal note-taking coordination (knowing who is taking what); time signals (noting 1min left or time’s up)

  • salt: thought the meeting went pretty well all things considered: thiink there should be some flexibility for adding agenda items to the bottom with the possibility there might be time*

  • wolftune: felt pretty good, decent amount of back-and-forth, suspect would be better in person (missed signals)

  • mray: nice meeting, nice to be in touch. This format is a little too much meta (talk about talk)