Closing procedure

[apantsiop]

Now that the event came to an end we need to start following a closing procedure. As I suggested this morning (verbally) and both Fotos and Vasilis when we discussed it over at Colab, we would like the procedure to have the following key features::

1. The management board ( @vvatikiotis, @fotos and @apantsiop ) will make all the arrangements for the termination of our NPO.
2. For all the remaining various post-event issues, the management board will maintain a list.
3. Do feel free to add any tasks we have missed, however, notify only the management board in order to avoid unnecessary long winded discussions.
4. Committee members or volunteers will be assigned on these tasks with a strict delivery date. On failure to deliver, the task will be re-assigned.
5. The tasks will be assigned taking into account the availability and former relation to the task and of course upon request.

The above might sound a little strict and the procedure a tad cumbersome. But, please, keep in mind that our volunteering time should (and will) be limited now that the event is over. And the management board, who will do all the coordination, needs some vacation, too :P

Please, state your objection here. If no objection is raised within the following day, we (the management board) will consider the above proposition as active.

Today we also looked over all the financial details. Fotos will inform you over email shortly.

P.S. I think there's more creative work to be done on EuRuKo 2013 and now - that we don't have the event's pressure before us - we can really enjoy it. Also, the delegates and speakers wish to see material of the event (photos, videos, articles etc.) they just attended, so, I think we also owe this to them.

[chief]

Ι dont agree with the proposed proccess in steps (2), (3), (4), (5) and maybe (1). Its not democratic, I see no reason why I as a member of committee with horizontal basis can accept a "management board" after 11 months of really hard work from nearly all of us.

Explain why we should change our nature and state. If you found that our organization didnt work so why our conference was successful? If you insist on this opinion then it will be a really shame on you. These tactics dont drive the community in a good path.

I will advice you to continue in the same nature (not way) we had. Please stay on the community base and focus on fixing the processes rather than place managers and roles.

I know that everybody have problems and tough times during our course but this change is drastic. Please try not to separate you and others. We were a single team. Accept or not that was the fact.

I will post more thoughts on this later.

[apantsiop]

The management board (or administration board) was voted ages ago. It will not affect the decision scheme of the committee, but merely organize the procedures/tasks. It's role is administrative and not to make decisions.

We should re-arrange our nature because we don't have the time and the resources any more to answer 200 emails each day. We bring up an issue, we get our choices/opinions (from EVERYONE), we vote, we assign, we execute. What can be more democratic than that?

The conf was a blast, but still I think we can be better in organizing things. The above is a procedure to keep things sane and well organized without making discounts on creativity or collective decision making.

But please, let me understand the alternative to the above? Split emails and github issues on a random basis, without having a tidy place to put them all? Having everybody raising issues without assignees and without specific tasks/todos? See for instance task no 135. Out finances are handled for a long time by our treasurer. The (issue) task has no real deliverable, i.e. it is not a task. It is just a piece of info hanging around, randomly raised (As you already noted written speech can be misunderstood, so don't read the above thinking that I am attacking you. It is just a difference in perspectives on how to organize things).

The above is my (truly humble) way of keeping us together till the end and still do some creative work. Of course I would love to hear your opinions on the matter. Here is a good place to lay them down.

(I would love to do a meeting with everybody and brainstorm, but even on this one (the way to go from here) we might get called to vote on, if consensus can't be reached)

[chief]

for me our community is more important than this committee.

Please try to solve your personal differences or at least try to avoid conficts (I refer to individual matters not collective)

This conference was meant to boost our community, our passion with tech and languages. Please try to find noble goals and stick to them than fighting each other which has the better goat. I have problems too but this is not the time to destroy all we 've done.

I also understand that retro is good but it needs clear mind and calm.

[chief]

I shall provide my proposal. So here it is:

Preparation

1. Examine who is willing to help in general. Write down names and estimation of time available.
2. Lay down all the tasks we could think of.
3. Start to pick tasks and try to avoid conflicts and bad matches. I believe this would be relative easy with some common sense

Check

1. For any task picked by someone, a delivery date will be given by him. If he cant deliver it the task is unassigned from him and anybody can pick it. If the person communicates the failure earlier it will be ok. But if he doesn't then all the tasks currently assinged to him should be removed. Actually the person will be out of the team.
2. For any task picked by a team see (1)
3. The check can be done by anyone.

[apantsiop]

I agree on preparation (1), (2), (3)

I agree on check (1), (2)

I have some doubts about the checking. Let me explain: if nobody (or all) is a designated checker. Then IMHO (and in my experience) nobody is gonna check anything. Everyone will be thinking that someone else "got this". It has happened before and back then many were blaming the committee's management board of not "shepherding us" (LOL).

So, the actual difference is that in my proposition the management board administrates the I/O (:-P) of the github issues and the deadline/alerts (most commonly known as shepherding in earlier meetings).

On the sideline: I really can't seem to find any "ideological" differences between the two propositions. In fact, I find yours a little bit harsh (you proposed to kick out of the team anyone who can't deliver a single task). I can work with both propositions. But I think yours will fail because nobody is going to have the "big picture" plan-wise (i.e. nobody will feel responsible for checking the schedule progress).

[chief]

Yes its hard because we dont have enough time. We need responsibility and freedom. I ve experimented this with a political group (but it wasnt 1 time, it was 2 or 3). Keep in mind that if one communicates the failure earlier no "kick process" done.

We should build responsible members. I believe lot of us are responsible. All could be.

You can find the "kick process" in Kastoriades writings (he named it "recall" or smth like that)

Its more democratic because:

• u have the freedom to choose
• u have the freedom to check

Its up to you to stay on track

[apantsiop]

OK can we please vote/decide on this one?

I wanna get work done :) Big lets-do-stuff appetite after the success...

[apantsiop]

@chief I read your post more carefully and I think you still don't get our drift.

When we say "check" we don't mean checking the actual deliverables and the quality if the work. This is open for everyone to check. Github issues will remain open and updated by the task owner. You can even comment and everything. What we are refering to is to "check" if the task progresses in a timely manner. i.e. a strictly administrational check.

Also about the freedom of choice will still be available even if we follow our ruleset. It's the coordination that will belong to the 3 of us. i.e. open a github issue, announce request for participation, arrange a voting if needed etc.

So, let me rephrase our ruleset once again in case we were misunderstood:

1. The administration board ( @vvatikiotis, @fotos and @apantsiop ) will make all the arrangements for the termination of our NPO.
2. The committee members will declare their availability for the next weeks.
3. For all the remaining various post-event issues, we will lay down all the tasks we can think of and create a task list.
4. The administration board will have the administration (and only that) of the task list.
5. The committee members will be able to add tasks to this list , however, only through the administration board in order to avoid unnecessary long winded discussions and in order to achieve uniformity.
6. Committee members or volunteers will be assigned on these tasks with a strict delivery date (after a discussion/voting by the committee) .
7. On failure to deliver, the task will be re-assigned.
8. The administration board will check the task list daily in order to raise an issue when a task has failed to be delivered.

I incorporated some of your ideas and rephrased a couple of ours. What do you guys think?

[chief]

If you rephrase/define 4, 5 and 8 and add the kick process I am totally agree I don't like the admin layer sorry I want one single horizontal layer You were elected just for the election Nothing more nothing else

On 1 Ιουλ 2013, at 9:22 μ.μ., Apostolos Pantsiopoulos notifications@github.com wrote:

@chief I read your post more carefully and I think you still don't get our drift.

When we say "check" we don't mean checking the actual deliverables and the quality if the work. This is open for everyone to check. Github issues will remain open and updated by the task owner. You can even comment and everything. What we are refering to is to "check" if the task progresses in a timely manner. i.e. a strictly administrational check.

Also about the freedom of choice will still be available even if we follow our ruleset. It's the coordination that will belong to the 3 of us. i.e. open a github issue, announce request for participation, arrange a voting if needed etc.

So, let me rephrase our ruleset once again in case we were misunderstood:

The administration board ( @vvatikiotis, @fotos and @apantsiop ) will make all the arrangements for the termination of our NPO. The committee members will declare their availability for the next weeks. For all the remaining various post-event issues, we will lay down all the tasks we can think of and create a task list. The administration board will have the administration (and only that) of the task list. The committee members will be able to add tasks to this list , however, only through the administration board in order to avoid unnecessary long winded discussions and in order to achieve uniformity. Committee members or volunteers will be assigned on these tasks with a strict delivery date (after a discussion/voting by the committee) . On failure to deliver, the task will be re-assigned. The administration board will check the task list daily in order to raise an issue when a task has failed to be delivered. I incorporated some of your ideas and rephrased a couple of ours. What do you guys think?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[apantsiop]

OK guys, voting it is:

1. @fotos, @vvatikiotis, @apantsiop proposition: The administrator board handles all arrangement details, the committee posts tasks/decides/votes
2. @chief proposition: The committee members/volunteers declare availability, the committee initializes a task list, the committee members post issues on demand, the committee members pick tasks, the tasks have deadlines, on failure to meet deadline the task is reassigned, the deadlines progress can be checked by anyone

(see discussion above on rationals for each proposition)

Voting ends tomorrow at 21:00. If not enough votes are casted there will be a HO at 22:00 to decide according to the NPO's "articles of association".

[apantsiop]

Forgot to write I vote for no 2.

[nikosd]

TL;DR; I'm ok with the proposition of @apantsiop. I'm not ok with gathering again 8 people to discuss even the simplest issues. If you go with the second option I will just follow your decisions and I'm open to assign me tasks but I won't be able to join you during the meetings.

The longer version (3 pages long) got cut because no one would ever read it with the attention it deserved and it may not matter anyway. We have fulfilled our goal and thus our days as a legal body (call it company or committee) are numbered. The community is not us, we were only a medium to make something happen and it did. And it went pretty well. Now, we are just a legal scheme that needs to complete the outstanding tasks and dissolve, as our article of association (--> "καταστατικό") clearly mentions. The community is out there with our awesome volunteers, the new ruby people and all the others that enjoyed the conference.

P.S.: @chief I would agree with your proposal and especially the "kick out" part some months ago. Now, it makes little sense to me cause I can't really find a practical use :(

[nikosd]

P.S.: @apantsiop I lost you, you vote for @chief's proposition?

P.S. 2: If it wasn't clear enough, I'm for 1.

[apantsiop]

Yep. I still believe no 1 is more efficient. But I can cope (as I did all year) with no 2 and it is less work for me also :P Me thinks is my turn to slack off.

P.S. By the way if (in prop. 1) you put in the place of "administration board" a random committee member's name, which is exactly that i.e. a task for someone to do, the whole thing seems quite silly if you ask me. But, alas, semantics, semantics... P.S. 2. I guess nobody disagrees about the 3 of us (administration board) closing the NPO, right? LOL

-- Apostolos Pantsiopoulos Software Engineer

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Nikos Dimitrakopoulos < notifications@github.com> wrote:

P.S.: @apantsiop https://github.com/apantsiop I lost you, you vote for @chief https://github.com/chief's proposition?

P.S. 2: If it wasn't clear enough, I'm for 1.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/134#issuecomment-20311760 .

[fotos]

@chief I like your proposal and I wish we have done that when it mattered a couple of months ago (the full monty). This a nice process for the next time. Now it's too late. :disappointed:

I'm for the speedy and efficient dissolution of the company and not 200 emails discussing every detail from every POV. You can spare me that. The company that organised the event is totally different from the community. The community can go on and do other amazing things. In the meantime the company must close down its operations as a legal entity as stated in its constitution.

Thus I vote for 1.

EDIT + PS: I read the whole thread 3-4 times and tried hard to understand both POVs and they seem quite similar to me in spirit. But I find option 1 more practical at the time of this writing. I, as the treasurer, want to finish up the task that was assigned to me in a timely way.

[apantsiop]

Actually from my understanding the only difference between the two is that in ours we do the list I/O (i.e. write the task to github, note down who is on it, alert when finished or failed). Which means that we have the big picture. We DON'T however assign tasks based on our judgment (the committee decides) and we DON'T make decisions about thrid parties (like e.g. who is getting the video editing thing) (the committee decides for this one also). So, the fuss is all about who does the data entry slave and the alarm clock.

[fotos]

Yes, but there is a really crucial distinction.

In the first option (as I understand it) the committee routes all the communication and that means no more emails off to everybody i.e. committee@euruko2013.org (we can close that list, yay). That means peace of mind, no more cluttered INBOX with random emails and tedious discussions about minute details anymore. And this is the important thing for me. If Apostolos and his man is doing his job I'm OK with it (Apostolos is partly accountable AFAI am concerned). Ditto, if Vasillis and his man handles another task I'm fine with it too. Then the only guys I have to communicate with are Vasillis and Apostolos. And, of course, any other guy that will handle tasks directly with me.

In the second option I will have to read availabilities, tasks lists, issues on demand, miscommunications, missed deadlines and all the stuff I had to bear with until today and I can't bear with anymore.

This is why I voted for Option 1. I want efficiency and minimal fuss. Option 2 promotes honest communication, teamwork, team transparency and all that. Both are greatb. Option 2 would be super for pre-conf. Option 1 is super for post-conf.

PS. This is what we did yesterday and today and it worked perfectly (in my eyes).

[apantsiop]

Exactly! We 3 don't run the tasks per se, we merely initiate the assignee selection process, mark down the progress to the github issue when needed, start a voting procedure if necessary, we ring bells etc. The task is being run by the person assigned to it. He is the master of the task.

P.S. We will be something like secretaries for the task assignees. This is why I think it is more efficient. I wish that someone attended on my tasks the whole year and just bugged me if I slacked. And this is why I voted for no 2, also. I mean... who wants to be a secretary? :P

[fotos]

@apantsiop right now I want to close the company and not play games. Sorry but it's not slacking time!

Likewise, I can also say, "who wants to be a treasurer?" who will handle all accounting with Manto, close the books, the company, the bank account and all that stuff?

Unfortunately it's us who did this all along and the burden is still on us to make sure the company closes diligently. If we are to go another route I will ask the board (or the committee) to official acquit me, give me a written pardon, hand over the books to the next treasurer who will handle that stuff, archive my email and go on with my life (finally) like Lucky Luke does with an awesome sunset! :sunglasses:

[apantsiop]

@fotos the NPO closure will be on our shoulders no matter which option we choose.

This is why I wrote : "I guess nobody disagrees about the 3 of us (administration board) closing the NPO, right? LOL". I know that I am going to do this, since I am the official secretary. Don't worry.

This voting is for tasks that have (almost) nothing to do with the closure. i.e. gather all the photos and store them/upload them or select all the docs that could benefit the next euruko and hand them over etc. And I volunteered to organize this also (not implement or decide) in the beginning. But I didn't see a positive reaction from anyone towards this, so I left the idea myself. I'll do it if the team wants me to, though. No question about that.

[fotos]

OK I'm fine with this too, as long as I don't know anything about it (i.e. no committee@euruko2013.org etc. emails) and someone from the board knows who handles each task.

For example if we are to open the repo (we are), someone who is legally binded should make sure that we remove info which we are not permitted (by contracts) to disclose. And that means someone must go through all issues and remove sensitive information. Anyone from the committee can do this task, but someone from the board must make sure we are in compliance with the contracts. Ditto for other sensitive tasks.

Non sensitive taks (such as photo gathering) can be done / organised by anyone and I don't want to know a thing. But for the company critical tasks the board is and should be responsible.

Therefore to resolve this issue we can split stuff into tasks that the board must do and act upon them at its sole discretion and in cooperation with specific members of the committee (accounting, logistics, lawyers, invoices, contracts, open the repo, etc) for the proper dissolution of the company and non-critical / sensitive tasks that the committee / volunteers can handle from which anyone can pick one and do as he pleases (organised through a list or a repo I won't participate in).

[vvatikiotis]

I'd go for the quickest, most painless, no 124444 emails, less process solution. @chief keep in mind that everyone is low on energy, overworked,it's summer and we need to rest and somewhat focus on our jobs. I abstain from voting, i'll go with whatever the team decides but please, I need fond memories from euruko, not a tiring, endless thing.

[nolamesa]

Due to the fact that my time is super limited and will not be of much help from now on, I believe I shouldn't really vote on this. Just so my opinion is noted here it goes:

I totally understand both points that were proposed and why they were set forward. In principle I am more or less fine with both of them. My problem is this thread. This whole discussion shouldn't have started. Doing all this fuss after a successful conference leaves me a bitter taste and I really don't like it. I was expecting to go out for a beer as a team who worked hard and have a relaxed conversation about what went right and wrong.

I don't understand @fotos obsession about not receiving any more emails. I had fun being able to read about almost every detail for a task I wasn't on. Also, I still like the random emails about Μπακαγιοκο and if we shut down the committee@euruko2013.org, I will still send those emails to info@euruko2013.org and if we close that one too, I will send Μπακαγιοκο himself to everyone's house (troll).

I know that the whole point of this thread is about the fact that there is important work to be done and we are all pretty tired to handle back and forth. Tottally acceptable, thus I will vote for option 1 since you will be settling this up for me and I want this to be as efficient as possible for you guys.

Overall I feel very sad about this thread and about all of us.

[chief]

@nolamesa totally agreed with your spirit

@vvatikiotis u said low energy, option 1 is heavy for 3 people. consider that please

@nikosd we r part of the community and we should keep this in mind. a lot of things willl come in the future, ruby meetups, newcomers and a lot of things may come like proposals for small conferences in greece etc. Setting now good processes in not too late.

I vote for (2), I will be unhappy with (1) but I will deliver whatever I ll take.

[apantsiop]

Somehow I feel even though we've send so many emails some things are not clear enough.

I think @fotos suggestion to close the committee@ list is too much. I think we should still use it for fun and communication (i.e. arrange a beer or somethin). I think what @fotos meant to say (or hope that he does) is that we won't have to post there urgent emails of the kind : "[URGENT][PHOTOS][ZOMG!] What about photos for the event".

Also, I would like to get feedback on the Github tasks from everyone on each update of each remaining task (the task assignees will not go on stealth mode, on the contrary they will be obliged to post regular updates)

I would like EVERYONE to understand that no decision will be made by the managment board, no info will be hidden, no comment will go unnoticed.

We were given (at least me and @vvatikiotis) a similar order before (remember the shepherding task and UPDATE STATUS xls?). It is one of the same here.

-- Apostolos Pantsiopoulos Software Engineer

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Giorgos Tsiftsis notifications@github.comwrote:

@nolamesa https://github.com/nolamesa totally agreed with your spirit

@vvatikiotis https://github.com/vvatikiotis u said low energy, option 1 is heavy for 3 people. consider that please

@nikosd https://github.com/nikosd we r part of the community and we should keep this in mind. a lot of things willl come in the future, ruby meetups, newcomers and a lot of things may come like proposals for small conferences in greece etc. Setting now good processes in not too late.

I vote for (2), I will be unhappy with (1) but I will deliver whatever I ll take.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/134#issuecomment-20331241 .

[pagojo]

This thread is a perfect example of why we should have met for a beer and also for deciding on the winding down. I was expecting our meetings, albeit not as densly, to continue (and @chief made some good points to support this view).

@nolamesa has expressed my feelings as well.

@chief's view is exactly why we joined on the first place and how we worked so far and this is good to remember.

We had a top end result albeit between us there tension and some bitterness and cockyness.

I vote for 2 because 1 is too easy to get already overworked people to break down. I think Apostolos will end up with soooo much more in his plate if we go for 1. I ll do whatever we decide of course.

Having said that and having spoken with @vvatikiotis on Sunday I feel we should meet to express both views before we break for the summer and then have a beer.

[damphyr]

(shouldn't have brought up Kastoriades on Saturday :wink: )

Here's my position:

I want to know everything that happens. 10 or so emails a day are not going to bury me anymore and I actually enjoy the trolling threads too much and I'm going to miss them. Emails can be devnulled with 0 effort, so there's absolutely no excuse.

There is no "management board". Certain things pertaining to the legal nature of our gathering naturally pipe tasks through @fotos @apantsiop and @vvatikiotis They need our help and it will be given. Decisions still need a majority vote. (and I seem to be repeating everything @apantsiop is saying)

On the other hand there is a whole bunch of tasks that have to do with how we handle the result and the original vision that actually led to 11 months of back breaking work: community build up here in Greece and ties and communication avenues with the rest of the world. I would like for @nolamesa to come back from his trips and find a continuation of some sort :smile:

Now, piping this through the NPO board for the sake of limiting email traffic is to my mind a huge mistake. Time and time again we have benefited by each other's complimenting and enhancing ideas (biggest and best example I can think of is the voting process/ceremony

As a natural course, the post-conference time will not include all of us at all times and at one point it will shed the EuRuKo name altogether, but should be done. It's also a low burn activity, meaning that we jot down some thoughts, take some time to recuperate and get back to it. We're talking about the Greek community here, they're not going to expect anything before October :trollface:

Wether you like it or not, you guys are now poster children for the Greek community. History should teach us a few lessons on this.

So let's stop filibustering and list the tasks, figure out who's doing what and wrap up.

[apantsiop]

Based on the above I could propose an alternative solution where each one of us may post an issue, check etc. but follow specific rules also. Something like :

• The issue should have 3 sections : title, detailed description, deliverables, deadline(s)
• The first stage is voting/deciding who gets it
• The maintainer of the issue is responsible for properly and regularly updating it (and answering in a timely manner to all suggestions/questions)
• The issues on GitHub remain clean and tidy. No lengthy arguments in there. If you want to extensively talk about it, take it outside (HO or Rubeer)
• The maintainer of the issue meets the deadline or he is kicked out of the issue pool
• Failure to comply with the above leads to the same result (kicking)

I can live and work with that.

P.S. I keep hearing that there is no "management board" which is a term I took from google to translate "προεδρείο". However, it is surprising how many hours I've spend doing stuff because of this, when everyone thinks that we are just decorative. Because, if elections where held just for the elections sake, why didn't anyone else kept meeting minutes but me? And why hasn't anyone else dealt with our financial obligations but Fotos. And so on... At some point we also took fire for not being "shepherds". No need to answer that though, it is just seems that everyone has a different opinion on our role, is all.

[apantsiop]

I took @damphyr 's post as a vote for number 2. Correct me if I'm wrong. So we have :

Prop (1) : 3 votes (@nikosd, @fotos, @nolamesa ) Prop (2): 4 votes (@apantsiop, @chief, @pagojo, @damphyr )

@vvatikiotis abstained from voting.

So, as a result :

The committee:

1. Should examine who is willing to help in general. Write down names and estimation of time available.
2. Lay down all the tasks they can think of.
3. Start to assign tasks

Progress checking rules:

1. For any task picked by someone, a delivery date will be given by him. If he cant deliver it the task is unassigned from him and anybody can pick it. If the person communicates the failure earlier it will be ok. But if he doesn't then all the tasks currently assinged to him should be removed. Actually the person will be out of the team.
2. For any task picked by a team see (1)
3. The check can be done by anyone

Since all of the above cannot self-jumpstart. I created #139 to add more tasks to be done. Also, the committee will have to meet to make the task assignments.

(one quick note from me: we shouldn't stall on anything of the above, the Kiev guys are depending on us, the whole thing shouldn't take more than 3 weeks tops )