[FOSS4G2016] FOSS4G2016 hacking weekend 20-22 nov

Wed Oct 21 11:52:23 PDT 2015

When I propesed this morning to to have a hacking weekend, 
I wasn't aware of the already scheduled FOSSGIS hacking weekend of 20-21-22 November in the Linux Hotel in Essen. [1]

So on next Monday's IRC we don't have to decide whether or not to organize a Hacking Even, but just if we (the LOC) will be there for a FOSS4G-orga-sprint.
(amazing: a bus ride from Amsterdam to Essen is only 15 euros single fare!)

regards, 

GJ

[1] http://www.fossgis.de/wiki/FOSSGIS_Hacking_Event_2015_Nummer_4

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: FOSS4G2016 [mailto:foss4g2016-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Gert-Jan van der Weijden
Verzonden: woensdag 21 oktober 2015 09:12
Aan: foss4g2016 at lists.osgeo.org
Onderwerp: Re: [FOSS4G2016] weekly IRC meeting

Hi LOC,

I'll be there on monday at 5 pm CET (otherwise I would be in the regular traffic jam anyway).
No matter what channel we choose (IRC, Slack, Hangout), most important is to have an agenda, a chair and a scribe.

First proposal for an agenda-item for this Monday: arrange a
FOSS4G2016 organisation hacking weekend in November, in ordr to make some serious steps forward.

Regards,

GJ

till.adams at fossgis.de schreef:

> Hi all,
>
> Darrrell, Marc, Volker, thanks for your comments on that.
> @Marc, I do not feel in a pitiable situation ;-) - other teams had and 
> always will have the same problem ;-)
>
> Although I like to pick up proposals and also like to cash in from 
> experiences past teams made, I'd like us to keep the suggested weekly 
> IRC meeting. From my own company experience I know that meetings, that 
> are not once a week or once a month don't work. You never know, is it 
> this week, is it next week or was it last week...?
>
> Also, if we recognize, that IRC is not appropriate we can change every 
> time ;-)
>
> So, first IRC meeting for LOC will be 26.10.2015 at 5 p.m. CET:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=FOSS4G+Weekly
> +IRC+Meeting&iso=20151026T17&p1=312&ah=1
>
> Thanks, Till
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 2015-10-21 00:12, schrieb Volker Mische:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't agree with Darell and Marc. Meeting over IRC can also be very 
>> efficient and I've seen those meetings. The problem with running them 
>> over voice is that people there also need to be efficient, if there 
>> are not, text can be faster. I see several advantages:
>>
>> - Many people can "speak" at once
>> - You don't need to interrcommiserateupt someone
>> - It's easier to speak up and disagree (e.g. if you are more of a 
>> silent person)
>> - You have everything in written
>> - Watchers can just join an lurk
>> - You might want to attend, mostly for listening or just for one 
>> small item, you can do something next to it
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Volker
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 11:51 PM, Marc Zakelijk wrote:
>>> I agree with Darrel; voice beats text in efficiency.
>>> commiserate
>>> I see where Jeff comes from.
>>> But for needed history and monitoring a central doc will suffice 
>>> when at least capturing;
>>> - planning per sub-committee and master planning
>>> - each agenda item has; A(ctivity statement ), B((enefit clearly 
>>> defined,  otherwise activity ditched), C(oncern or risk assessment 
>>> of intended action success) and D(o r action stated to overcome
>>> concern)
>>> - each activity has people who are R(responsible, who has to Do 
>>> something), A(countable, who monitors progress), (to be) C(onsulted, 
>>> for possible advice), (to be) I(nformed, but stays out of the way as 
>>> much as possible ;-)
>>> - there is only 1 Responsible person per task, 1 Accountable, a few 
>>> to be Consulted, and more to be Informed
>>> - is a task or activity too large for one person it gets divided 
>>> into smaller tasks with maybe more people involved
>>>
>>> I commiserate with Till.
>>> Before everyone suffers from inertia;
>>> - Without a Program (you can read Product) there is no idea of who 
>>> feels/is invited as audience/Buyers of tickets (academia, 
>>> developers, non-tech end-users, public sector orgs, NGO's, 
>>> commercial orgs, etc)
>>> - Without an intended audience-segmentation there is no effective 
>>> promotion possible, nor can sponsors be sure their particular 
>>> audience is present.
>>> - Without targeted promotion the overall attendance suffers and 
>>> cross-pollination between sub-groups suffers too.
>>> - Without sponsors it will be a rather Spartan affair or very expensive.
>>>
>>> My two cents.
>>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
>>>> Op 20 okt. 2015 om 22:53 heeft Darrell Fuhriman 
>>>> <darrell at garnix.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> For 2014 we started with bi-weekly meetings and only moved to 
>>>> weekly meetings in August. I thought it was sooner than that, but 
>>>> apparently not.
>>>>
>>>> I totally disagree about the IRC/Slack thing, IMNSHO. It’s a far, 
>>>> far slower way to communicate than voice. A well run meeting is 
>>>> going to be many times faster.
>>>>
>>>> The main thing is:
>>>>
>>>> Designate a note taker to:
>>>> • Track New TODOs
>>>> * Track decisions made
>>>>
>>>> The note taker is always different from the person running the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> At each meeting, we created a google document for the next meeting, 
>>>> and people could add to the agenda at any time up until the time of 
>>>> the meeting. Notes were then taken in that same document.
>>>>
>>>> Always follow up on old TODOs, both to nag and to check for relevancy.
>>>>
>>>> If you want an effective meeting, learn how to run an effective 
>>>> meeting. They don’t happen by accident.
>>>>
>>>> Darrell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 06:31, Jeff McKenna 
>>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes at some point soon you should move to a weekly meeting.  I 
>>>>> have seen some past committee teams use IRC successfully (there is 
>>>>> the #foss4g channel on freenode that is mostly empty, awaiting 
>>>>> your use), and also phone conference calls using audio (it could 
>>>>> be a weekly hangout with audio).  But personally I find that IRC 
>>>>> meetings are much more "get down to business" than the audio calls 
>>>>> ("hi how was your weekend?"), so I have a preference for the IRC 
>>>>> text chat (or Slack, but that seems to offend some Open Source 
>>>>> "oldtimers" so IRC it is, ha).
>>>>>
>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-10-19 5:41 AM, till.adams at fossgis.de wrote:
>>>>>> Hi LOC!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a really honest eamil but unfortunately it looks like, 
>>>>>> that it is necessary.
>>>>>> I know, that everybody involved in LOC also has a normal job and 
>>>>>> I also understand that not everybody of you can act like I am doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But...we are now in a situation where I really must **rely** on 
>>>>>> everybody's contributions!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that at least it should be possible to everyone, who gets 
>>>>>> asked about s.th. which is in your personal area of 
>>>>>> responsibility to reply to a question in a short email.
>>>>>> And if the reply is: "Sorry, I am short in time for now, but I 
>>>>>> will work on this on [...]" - that's also fair and nobody will be 
>>>>>> angry about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> !!!The worst thing you can do (to all other people involved in 
>>>>>> LOC) is to do/write/say nothing!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note, that we are far away from having too much time for 
>>>>>> organization and I really would like to get us all in motion for 
>>>>>> the upcoming tasks!
>>>>>> The most urgent things are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> add more info on the homepage (@Anja, Carmen asked last week 
>>>>>> -> about
>>>>>> having a meeting this week?)
>>>>>> -> fix sponsorship and exhibition packages (@Arnulf and @Hinrich: 
>>>>>> -> still
>>>>>> no reply from you)
>>>>>> -> fix our contract with WCCB (wrote a question on this a few
>>>>>> minutes ago)
>>>>>> -> fix of our timetable and with that all the upcoming tasks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So please, please let us get these things in motion!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe having a hangout or IRC chat once a week would make 
>>>>>> communication easier? Our monthly meetings are good but mainly 
>>>>>> restricted to people located in Bonn What do you think? Any other 
>>>>>> ideas on that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, Till
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016

Gert-Jan van der Weijden
Voorzitter Stichting OSGeo.nl
_______________________________________________
FOSS4G2016 mailing list
FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016