[FOSS4G2016] weekly IRC meeting

Tue Oct 20 23:49:32 PDT 2015

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