Meeting — July 24th, 2020

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

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

1. Metrics

Discourse (over past week):

  • Signups: 0 -> 1

  • New Topics: 4 -> 4

  • Posts: 41 -> 29

  • DAU/MAU: 43% -> 35%

Snowdrift patrons: 123

2. Review previous meeting feedback

  • mray: good meeting, everything in timebox, not much meta talk

  • adroit: wondering about the trend pushing everything towards post meeting

  • salt: better job over last time in terms of well-defined topics

  • wolftune: thanks to notetakers, aiming to finish early helps assure all topics get covered

  • msiep: 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: couldve been shorter. Don’t type on the same line as actively being written please, note-takers. These meetings should be stand-up 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 for specific work topics

3. Last meeting next-steps review

Mozilla Builders Open Lab start

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

4. Current Agenda

formal invite to adroit (alignwaivers)

  • alignwaivers: quick vote here to do this, can learn from process in moving forward

  • smichel: Only concern is, while Adroit has shown dedication, he hasn’t made very many contributions. What do we want the standard for a team member to be?

  • salt: think it’s a valid question, hard to tease apart different forms of contribution. Showing up as an active contributer often become moderators, I think that’s valid

  • wolftune: In the team agreement, we said, people must be prompt at responding to communication, and coming to meetings as possible.

  • wolftune: I do see the tension, don’t want someone hanging around but not doing anything.

  • VOTE: 6 voted yes

  • NEXT STEPS (wolftune + alignwaivers + adroit): onboard adroit and document steps taken

Weekly meeting day/time (Salt)

  • Salt: When is it changing?

  • alignwaivers: next week. Take a vote?

  • Salt: I don’t think we need a vote, just anyone let us know if there’s an objection

  • align: The best time for standup was clear; I wanted to talk about the other one. Friday?

  • NEXT STEPS (alignwaivers + smichel): update lists forms, posts with the meeting times Wednesday 1PST, Fri 1PST

Reaching out to potential funding sources (Salt)

  • During the Ford/Sloan presentation, Jochai Ben-Avie, head of internal public policy at Mozilla suggested any FLOSS projects looking for money email him

  • Looking for input about whether following these leads is a priority use of snowdrift time right now

  • If we agree that it is, then looking for someone to take the lead on this and propose a timeline

  • call for round:

    • alignwaivers: given it’s mozilla person, I think it makes sense to follow up at the end of the [¿incubator?]

    • wolftune: priority is to make connections with people, knowing that they are connected to grants, gives connecting to them a priority, start by making a good partnership with them, start with starting a dialogue, don’t jump to assuming we are focusing on asking them for money

    • msiep: –

    • salt: my big concern is that we have limited bandwidth, also until civi is up communication tracking isn’t trivial.

    • smichel: I think it makes sense to reach out sooner after this invitation. can mention that are part of mozilla incubator, regarding logistics, put it on same person handling other mozilla comms. Also while we still definitely have 501c3 status through the OSI.

  • alignwaivers: those are good points, timing may be good, don’t need to ask for money directly, add not great fit for mozilla builder tracks

  • NEXT STEP (alignwaivers + Salt): draft email

Finalize Roadmap

  • smichel: I’ve done 1:1 with everyone. Refresher: we added our priorities for the project — what we think ought to happen this phase in order for the project to stay on track — and claimed those we were comfortable committing to leading or helping with. This phase ends Aug 15 (in 3 weeks).

  • smichel: Now, it’s time to debate any priorities we disagree over trim those goals down to being realistic. To do this, we’ll drop (move to “later phases” section) any priorities that are unclaimed at the end of this discussion.

    • Since the next phase is in only 3 weeks, I’ll move them directly there instead, this time.
  • smichel: ROUND: Are there any priorities you object to (ie, you think we should not do them at all)?

    • Discuss each objection and either keep or discard the priority.

    • Salt: Not sure about running a crowdmatch, committing to roadmap vs just getting to, SSO

    • wolftune: BLM? SSO?

    • msiep: SSO, project visibility

  • smichel: ROUND: Are there any priorities you could commit to if they were smaller / broken up (ie, a subtask)?

    • Split the task up and put the person’s name next to the subtask they’d like to commit to
  • smichel: ROUND: Are there any unclaimed priorities you think are more important than a claimed priority?

    • You may try to convince people to swap with a priority they have claimed. Final decision is theirs.
  • smichel: @wolftune Since I’ve been driving the update process, do you want me to take the task of creating the history page?

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Capture updated roadmap at

  • NEXT STEP (smichel): Clean up roadmap planning etherpad

  • NEXT STEP (all @team): Start the process again — add anything you think ought to happen in the next phase (Q3.2, ending Sept 30) [when pad is ready]

5. Open discussion

  • wolftune: Instead of separate half-quarter roadmap, maybe quarter-roadmap phases with explicit half-way-points that we reflect on and allow changes at that point

6. meeting evaluation / feedback / suggestions / appreciations round

  • wolftune: I appreciate timeboxes. Felt good that I’ve made progress between meetings

  • adroit: regret missing first part, happy to see we’re tackling the roadmap

  • salt: thanks for all being here, timeboxing feels good. Need to think how to fix mray’s issue cause we want him here.

    • TODO: Figure out how to respond when someone has connection issues
  • msiep: appreciate hearing the things being worked out

  • alignwaivers: roadmap is messy but also figuring out the process, +1 to timeboxing

  • smichel: I like that we can all argue and not have drama / hold grudges, great team