https://emory.zoom.us/j/97449753231?pwd=NXZMcWNoMlFISnhuS2dXWjh2Zys5dz09
Meetings are held every other Tuesday at 8:00 AM PT / 11:00 AM ET / 4:00 PM CET.
Participants
your name here!
Agenda
Notetaker?
Kevin
Discuss challenges to targeted work in groups from https://docs.google.com/document/d/16q35KCOH5JOIu_FMxUMgJXz-q9ujy5tjxboJefVx62Y/edit#heading=h.7ftptft88anw
Are there missing challenges not documented?
Solutions: what would reduce/eliminate/mitigate these challenges?
Next steps and action items
Notes
Walk through “Challenges” section on promoting Working Group Contributions
Time, Acceptance, Skill, Frustration - what’s missing?
Time zones can be a challenge
The opportunity for high-bandwidth collaboration is limited
Even harder if the developer’s organization isn’t supporting them
Time
When time is out, it leaves things hanging, unfinished. Esp. difficult w/out organizational support
Probably need to organize iterations to complete unfinished work
Finish line becomes the clock, not the deliverable
How do we plan to wrap loose threads after a sprint?
Is this an unsolvable problem with Agile?
Are there situations where individual institutions take community work and finish it up?
Planning commitment to the next step/phase/sprint could help
With Hyrax-Valkyrie, there’s no scheduled follow up at times, which makes it hard to predict what happens next to the work
Ad Hoc invitations/calls for Hyrax Maintenance Working Group may be turning out to be effective
Communication at the local/organizational level can be an issue, institution may not be aware of the 6mo expected commitment for Maintenance Working Group
Put it on the Partner to weigh the needs of the community and check in there as they plan
Reactive planning is more common unfortunately
When there’s a standing expectation communicated to the Partners, they might approach a new year of partnership with an expectation to commit hours
May be more effective to tie these asks into the academic year
Noted that this year is complicated by folks returning to office
What is the Partner feeling about planning to commit in general vs. committing only for the things they have a vested interest in?
Intention via Roadmap is to be communicative about what future work might be, but there’s a disconnect between what the active developers see vs. what the Partner manager level sees?
May help to be more vocal about this in Partner meetings
Since the community doesn’t have to spend a lot of effort on fundraising (due to the Partner model), should we consider an approach of using that effort to request developer hours?
Jon Dunn is someone who has seen this as the responsibility of people at his upper management level - peer-to-peer cultivation of that expectation at the Partner level
Roadmap
Can we have Partners vote on priorities and use that to leverage engagement?
At least create a contact list of who to reach out to for resources based on who voted on what priorities
Roadmap may shift, ie, if the Hyrax Grant comes through, there may be new priorities
Action items
Partner meeting Friday:
Cultivate early buy-in on advance planned working group schedules
Communicate mutability of the ask (ie, 1 dev 0.5 FTE vs. 2 dev 0.25 FTE)
Feedback on how much advance planning they need to allocate resources