resources/meetings/2020/

resources/meetings/2020/2020-07-03-meeting

Meeting — July 3rd, 2020

  • Attendees from last week: wolftune, smichel, alignwaivers, mray, Salt, msiep

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

Metrics

Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 1

  • New Topics: 4 -> 1

  • Posts: 13 -> 1

  • DAU/MAU: 32% -> 34%

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

Timeboxing

  • 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

Notetaking

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

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

Review previous meeting feedback

  • 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)

Last meeting next-steps review

self-presentation overhaul

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

civicrm coworking and update

  • NEXT STEP (salt, wolftune, smichel): co work on this [did some, maybe could do more?]

update availability

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

Current Agenda

Roadmap review: Q2 2020 (smichel)

https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/planning

  • smichel: Reached the end of our 2nd quarter, let’s review and assess

  • wolftune: Gotten bylaws down to a few items, still parsing questions/work to summarize enough to relay to a lawyer

  • smichel: since we haven’t completed, what was this a case of?

  • wolftune: weren’t sure if they would be done in time, turns out there is still more to do

  • smichel: on css/SASS - probably would have gotten more done but goals changed as I looked a the code base

  • smichel: would have completed if didn’t find additional work to do in the process

  • wolftune: so in these cases, as much work was done as expected, but more work added

  • wolftune: infrastructure still has some small tasks to finish on OSUOSL side

  • salt: getting civicrm working / into a useable state has some small blockers, and finding time to get things done was a bit of an issue

  • salt: I think we shouldve put something into community outreach - not sure how best to implement

  • salt: tracking things that will be completed in a later phase (in the current) ???

  • smichel: I think we should have mapped out the things in the current phase in more detail. Might be reasonable to have a shorter phase

  • wolftune: I can see the possibility of having multiple shorter phases, or have specific delineations of tasks to be completed at certain times within the phase. Don’t want to constantly change things just to make the phase successful, but we do want to be able to update tasks

  • smichel: So a next thing to do will make a ‘previous phases’ page, with post-notations

  • smichel: disagree about updates, I think failures are fine if we don’t hit targets, it’s a learning curves

  • salt: I agree with smichel that we shouldn’t change the roadmap after we’ve decided on it

  • https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/wiki/-/issues/25

  • wolftune: if we are going to stick to agreed upon roadmap, I think it needs to be shorter periods

  • salt: reapproaching why we decided to do the roadmap will help us decide how we are going to use this

  • wolftune: this is both external and internal, should be accurate and not just aspirational

  • salt: I think there should be something akin to voting for these belated additions

Roadmap planning: Q3 2020 (smichel)

  • smichel: 2nd half of https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/planning, should go through this and assess

  • wolftune: what duration of roadmap are we going to do?

  • Salt: half quarters should be good so this will be 3.1

  • wolftune: note that the things that are planned for later have less detail

  • salt: should mark calendar dates, cause (as in this meeting) it fell between meetings

  • wolftune: let’s put into a pad while we work on it

  • smichel: is this something you want board help on? make a next step?

  • wolftune: don’t want this to be final after today

  • smichel: we could use this as a draft and post it

  • salt: i don’t think discussing this at all is effective here

  • smichel: I agree that there’s a tension, should be a team effort

  • salt: doesn’t seem like this is the right meeting to do this on

  • alignwaivers: having a dedicated meeting for this seems appropriate

  • salt: the weekly meeting should be very clear that it’s going to be the whole focus of the meeting

  • call for round on roadmap meeting, desire to be involved with (smichel)

    • smichel: would like to be involved, don’t think it needs to be synchonous, I can convey what I want to do for roadmap and get confirmation/agreement from others

    • msiep: I’d be fine to look at a draft, doesn’t need to be syncrhonous

    • salt: somewhat intterested, think there should be async draft sync review

    • alignwaivers: I think there should be a sync review, but agree with salt, drafting can be async

    • wolftune: agree with what salt said, simulating what a real office feels like (checking in one-on-ones occasionally) can be effective

    • mray: Sync not necessary

    • lisha: async is fine

  • salt: a lot of this goes back to previous conversations of domains

  • wolftune: want to make progress on domains

  • NEXT STEP (): add a section for ‘belated additions’ that didn’t get included in original roadmap

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Propose a plan for how to proceed with roadmap planning

OSI online conference (wolftune)

  • https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/state-of-the-source-online-conference-sept-9-11-2020/1552

  • wolftune: call for proposals are open, looks interesting. Have the intention to propose, but wanted to announce

  • salt: I’m pretty commited to propose something, CFP closes on the 9th

  • wolftune: We should coordinate? I would also like to put in a proposal. And CoC/ToS submission. Tempted to also focus on conscious leadership, but it’s related, could incorporate it.

  • wolftune: This is more open-ended, OSI trying to build community. Still somewhat corporate, but if we wanna push the political economic issues, would be a good place to promote

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune,salt): make a meeting to coordinate this

self-presentation overhaul (mray) [carried over]

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

update availability [carry over]

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


meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • salt: I felt like I wanted to know when the boundaries of the timeboxes were, but mightve been that we had few but long items

  • mray: Agreed, felt like meeting was very meta, not much chance to participate.

  • align: Would have been nice if this meeting were dedicated to roadmap, notetaking strategy (queue self with “-” on next line) worked well

  • smichel: agree with the feedback, had the idea of working on the roadmap but didn’t know how. Had I realized this, wouldve put on the forum in advance

  • wolftune: Makes sense to have responsibility for those who bring up topics so people can’t just add topics without being prepared to effectively lead. Anyone could make notes of tensions to discuss in open discussion, no guarantee of those, but can be really productive to have that as to wrap up the meeting early. Also, I struggled to balance involvement, timekeeping and facilitating; would have been better if everyone were here to start on time.

  • lisha: I think end of meeting feedback is a really good pattern.

  • smichel: Idea: Each topic starts with, “Here’s what I want from this topic”