cisaacstern
commented
3 years ago I propose we eliminate the inform interested parties objective from the bi-weekly meetings.
š
As a compromise, perhaps we could rotate moderator duties among @pangeo-forge/dev-team. We should also have a notetaker for each meeting.
Does anyone know of a good approach to manage the Moderator and Notetaker role assignments? I note that not everyone on @pangeo-forge/dev-team can come to every meeting, so rotating through the whole list is infeasible. And even among regular attendees, bandwidth will obviously vary week-to-week. Ideally we can alleviate Ryan's burden while also:
- Having a transparent method for tracking, assigning, and re-assigning (as needed) weekly roles
- ... that does not require adding an additional site/app into the mix.
- Is there a way to manage this through GitHub Projects, perhaps? š¤
I believe the focus should be on issues that really benefit from back-and-forth real-time discussion.
Is it too prescriptive to suggest that every item added to the Agenda be linked (literally/click-ably) to an open Issue on some pangeo-forge repo? In the best case scenario this allows meeting participants to both prep and follow-up more easily.
ciaransweet
rabernat
sharkinsspatial
We have been running biweekly meetings since August. (Meeting notes doc)
IMO, these meetings have been relatively effective for coordination. But there is also room to improve their organization and structure. Below are some proposals, for which I am seeking feedback from @pangeo-forge/dev-team.
Purpose and intended participants for the biweekly meeting
We should clearly define the purpose of the biweekly meeting. To me it seems to have two potentially competing purposes:
Given the finite length of the meeting, these two objectives are in competition: people new to the project are bored by detailed technical discussion, and seasoned collaborators are bored by high-level exposition.
The purpose question is closely tied to the question of who should attend the meeting. The technical discussion is most effective with a smaller group. I am fine with an unlimited number of "observers" at the meeting, who may be there just to onboard and absorb knowledge passively. But that may not be the most effective way to onboard, and is certainly not a good way to actively entrain new volunteer contributors.
I propose we eliminate the inform interested parties objective from the bi-weekly meetings. We can inform and onboard through other means, such as better online documentation, videos, and demos. In special cases, we can schedule one-off meetings to encourage potential new high-value collaborators.
Moderation and notetaking
I am currently doing too much at our meetings. I always serve as moderator and often also take notes. Plus I have a lot to say as a participant. I think we should switch to a mode where we appoint a dedicated moderator for each meeting. Ideally this moderator should not be an active participant, but I don't know where we would find such a person. As a compromise, perhaps we could rotate moderator duties among @pangeo-forge/dev-team. We should also have a notetaker for each meeting.
Agenda
Currently I am the only one developing the meeting agenda. I would like to switch to a more collaborative mode, wherein team members add items to the agenda throughout each two-week intra-meeting period (sprint?). The agenda items should be motivated by the meeting purpose, as defined above. What belongs on the agenda? What is the best use of our limited face-to-face time? I believe the focus should be on issues that really benefit from back-and-forth real-time discussion. Ideally we should all review the agenda before the meeting and come prepared with our thoughts.
Let me know how you feel about these suggestions. They are informed by my evolving understanding of how to run an effective meeting, much of which comes from Greg Wilson's book.