Meeting — July 17th, 2020

  • Attendees from last week: adroit, alignwaivers, mray, salt, smichel, wolftune, msiep (part)

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

1. Metrics

Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 0

  • New Topics: 5 -> 4

  • Posts: 13 -> 41

  • DAU/MAU: 36% -> 43%

Snowdrift patrons: 121

2. Review previous meeting feedback

  • smichel: Happy we are ending early, some meta meeting stuff could be forum posts so people can think about in advance

  • salt: Mostly good, worried that some people have stopped coming to meetings because of ‘meta’ talk

  • adroit: can’t seem to get into the mumble server still, using phone instead

  • alignwaivers: If we have only 5 min of open discussion, we can finish early and people can leave without pressure. More discussion after can happen then.

  • mray: I think my tension about meta talk is still present

  • wolftune: meeting eval round could go faster, we should all aim for efficiency and high signal-to-noise ratio, timekeeping worked well

3. Last meeting next-steps review

Meeting pad cleanup

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune): Move top content to bottom, replace with clear note [DONE]

Meeting schedule update

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): follow up with chreekat and announce new meeting time proposals by sunday [captured]

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Share adroit’s update link [DONE]

Reminder about roadmap updates

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): 1-on-1 with mray, alignwaivers, wolftune, Salt [DONE]

From open discussion

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune + smichel): schedule meeting to discuss OSI and 501c3 status + roadmap

4. Current Agenda

Onboarding process for new team members (alignwaivers)

  • alignwaivers: put step of “review CoC and other core documents” (as suggested at explicitly in either the team agreements or in the ‘proposal for onboarding new team members’ (on same discourse thread as linked)

  • call for vote on smichel’s proposal at

  • use this mechanism to vote -

  • wolftune: seems we need/want: (A) eligibility (B) process for inviting and when they become official

  • smichel: wanna propose an informal invitation of inviting connor to the team, and use it to learn what we want to formalize

  • salt: +1

  • alignwaivers: call for vote on informally inviting connor

  • mray: could/should document/focus on specific roles needed and what skillsets the potential new members bring

Mozilla Builders Open Lab start (alignwaivers)

  • alignwaivers: progress report due monday key for allocation of more resources (community events?)

  • 185 people in town hall

  • progress report due monday. What have we done in past week?

  • wolftune: we did this mostly to make connections, get perspective, acountability.

  • There was a talk on Focus, mvp/do-one-thing-well. Tensions about why we don’t just take a narrow focus but mission creep definitely one of our main problems.

  • wolftune’s breakout room discussion, mvp proposal: what would it take to get to a viable way to get user feedback?

  • salt: want to keep discussion focused. Shorter term: report due monday!

  • wolftune: agree but there’s much to discuss on what I just brought up. Our weekly report should be to get our house in order to figure out our key priorities are

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers): post forum topic to decide on our weekly report for Mozilla

From last meeting carry-over

  • NEXT STEP (wolftune + smichel): schedule meeting to discuss OSI and 501c3 status + roadmap

  • wolftune: not sure this needs to discussed. It mostly needs to be captured

  • smichel: not sure what else is needed, maybe nothing.

Roadmap (smichel)

  • Not quite 100% prepared, not sure if I should bump to next week

  • smichel: not sure if I’m ready to discuss this at the moment, maybe put into open discussion

  • salt: might propose having 1on1s if possible

5. Open discussion

6. meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • mray: think it was a good meeting, everything in their time frame, not much meta talk so it was nice

  • adroit: thought it was good meeting, wondering about the trend pushing everything towards post meeting, might not make a difference

  • salt: think things are tightening up, did a better job last time with well-defined topics

  • wolftune: thanks to notetakers, can be very useful. agree about clear topics, good to finish formal stuff sooner and better to get through all the topics instead of rushing through things to get them all

  • msiep: also appreciate notetakers, timeboxes are a good thing as well as ending early and having subgroups

  • align: tension between open vs more-defined topics, glad that we’re building practice on getting that balance

  • smichel: agree with pretty much everything , think it couldve been a shorter meeting. Don’t type on the same line please, note-takers (it’s ok to edit earlier in the line, but not pick up where I’m typing). This really should be a stand-up meeting where everyone gets a chance to answer “is there anything you’re needing?” and check-in briefly etc., make sure we’re on track, we can have separate meetings (with best people) for working on specific topics in depth