Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Steering Committee/Notes/2017-02-10

Community Process Steering Committee

February 10, 2017

Meeting A: 8 a.m. Pacific (4 p.m. UTC)

Meeting B: 2 p.m. Pacific (10 p.m. UTC)

Committee members

• Risker, Canada, Individual contributor/Former ArbCom/Functionary/Election Committee/FDC
• Lucy Crompton-Reid, UK, Staff/ED of WMUK
• Bishakha Datta, India, Former WMF Board/FDC
• Florence Devouard, France, Former WMF Board/WMF Adv Board/Individual contributor
• Nicole Ebber, Germany, Staff of WMDE
• Mykola Kozlenko, Ukraine, WMUA
• Dumisani Ndubane, South Africa, WMZA/Former FDC
• Sandra Rientjes, Netherlands, Staff/ED of WMNL
• Kaarel Vaidla, Estonia, Former ED of WMEE
• Liam Wyatt, Italy, Individual contributor/GLAM/FDC
• Andrea Zanni, Italy, Wikimedia Italy, Wikisource leader

In attendance

Meeting A

• Sandra
• Lucy (via docs), Dumi, (post call via docs due to connection problems)
• Core Team: Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
• CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Karen B (notes)

Meeting B

• Florence, Liam, Nicole, Andrea, Mykola, Kaarel, Risker
• Core Team:  Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
• CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Nick W (notes)

Agenda

• HH:00 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review
• HH:10 Prototype Review: Guided Discussion
• HH:30 Toolkit frame review
• HH:45 Framing Review: Guided Discussion
• HH:55 Wrap-up and Next Steps

HH:00 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review

Task	Status
Complete your brainstorm of channel ideas to be sure your ideas are input	Thank you to all who shared ideas, this task is complete. CE staff support will be working with the comms teams to flesh out contact routes.
Job Posting for Meta and Language Coordinators	The Community Engagement department is quickly reviewing candidates for the Language Specialist Strategy Coordinators. We have many strong candidates, but are still working to address some key language gaps in Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Vietnamese and Malayalam. Any assistance in helping get the word out about the open postings, especially in those languages, would be greatly appreciated.
Add thoughts or considerations to the role and needed skills of the “facilitator of facilitators”/community Lead for Track A so that we can begin recruitment next week.	As was updated mid-week, the job description was developed by the Talent & Culture team over the weekend and the core team has begun recruitment for the Track A Lead
Core team will pull together a summary of lessons learned from past strategy efforts and outcomes to bring more to the committee.	* Audit of 2010 process with specific recommendations for 2017 process * Link to performance against actual plan goals (more detail on the complexity around this to follow)
Post updated prototypes to meta following second steering committee feedback session so that community members are commenting on the same version	The Core Team developed and posted on Meta-Wiki the second iteration of process prototypes for Track A & Track B, addressing concerns raised by the Community Process Steering Committee. Main improvements made to the prototypes included adding more support, including an additional Track A lead, adding a Beta rollout to the design (20 February−1 March) for larger affiliates to use and give feedback on, and expanding the timeframe for the first round of discussion. We have not see much for comment, however, the comms team is working with Community Engagement support staff to try to broaden the reach of the strategy updates.
Synthesizing feedback and additional plans to the prototype including first mapping of the toolkit.	The Core Team has begun building out the facilitator toolkit and framing context for community discussions based on input from the Committee which we will gather input on in our agenda. See first toolkit draft
The Community Engagement department and Core Team have requested the Community Process Steering Committee extend their original mandate period by two weeks to help provide additional input on strategy process development.	Jaime has heard from 8 of the 11 active committee members who are willing and able to continue support for the development of the toolkits.

• January 20: The Committee holds the first to discuss design parameters for the two track processes (organized groups and individual contributors) and share ideas on process with the core strategy team. COMPLETE
• January 27: The core strategy team shares the first draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 3: Post Draft #1 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the second draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 9: Post Draft #2 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the third draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 13: Post Final Process on Meta
• February 17: Toolkits review - Specific action targets TBD
• February 24: Toolkits review - Specific action targets TBD

:00 notes

Group A

• Slight delay in meeting start, due to Lucy having sound difficulties. Lucy ends up being unable to participate in this meeting. Sandra is our only community member in this meeting!
• Jaime: all the updates since last week are summarized in the notes. We are working with Comms on contact routes, working on hiring coordinator candidates (some languages still need more applicants - Vietnamese, Malayam, etc)
  • German wiki community is debating whether it should allow a coordinator into this job (Nicole is supporting Steering Committee needs there)
  • If you know a speaker of one of the needed languages who might be good, encourage them to apply
• Core team has been working to pull together an audit
  • Suzie adds: The audit document has been posted on Meta since the autumn, but it’s worth Committee members taking another look at now
  • SN: One of the questions that came up was “how did we do against the last strategy process?”. I’m not quite ready to publish, but I have a slides in preparation about metrics details and context. Will share those when I have sign-off on them. We want to make sure we’re measuring the right metrics.
• SR: When it comes to metrics, chapters already have a lot of experience of this issue already. It could be valuable to look at the best practices chapters have come up with, and see if they scale
  • SN: Yes, that’s something we’re looking into
• JA: Updates to the prototypes (Tracks A and B) have been posted on Meta, but haven’t gotten much comment yet. Comms is working on broadening channels to reach out to community
• JA: Core team has begun building out facilitator toolkit. Asking the committee to extend their commitment for a couple more weeks beyond the original plan. We are very grateful to everyone who has agreed!
• Yesterday we put draft 2 up on Meta for comment. SR, you have also seem toolkit and framing prototypes

Group B

• Jamie: Summary of progress (details above). Thanks for working on the new JD over the weekend. Core team has worked on lessons from last strategy (see links, audit, recommendations, performance against plan goals). Core team has shared the Track A/B updates to Meta - hoping for community feedback. Synthesizing feedback into new prototype - first draft sent yesterday. You've all been asked if you'd be able to extend your advice for a few more weeks  -please let Jamie know by Monday. On-time for milestones, working on drafts for framing and toolkit.

HH:10 Prototype Review: Guided Discussion

The Core team has worked to make revisions to the 3rd round of the prototypes:

• Prototype #3 for A
• Prototype #3 for B

:10/:15 notes

Group A

• SN offers introduction: Flow of prototype is mostly the same as last week, except stretching the time allotted to synthesis/sense-making, and shortening time for finalizing theme. Also added much more specific detail about each step.
• SN: One of the big questions I am asking SC members is about themes: how many should we have? How many are too many? What’s the “right” number?
  • Our assumption is that the actual themes that are generated won’t be dramatically different - in 90 minute staff sessions, we generated a total of 11 themes, for example. Similar number generated in ED meeting, and then reduced down.
  • So, no matter how many themes come, we will be doing a detailed look at clustering the themes before we go into Cycle 2
  • What do you think would be a manageable number for the conversation in Cycle 2?
    • SR: Gut reaction? Maybe 10, if you want to have a meaningful discussion. But also, I want to know “what is a theme”? You could make “Tech” a theme, but that’s so huge that it doesn’t really have any meaning as a theme for prioritization
      • GP: The way we’ve been talking about themes, we want them to be more like sentences, so they’re approachable and not vague. So a theme might be “We need more technical tools to facilitate collaboration.”
    • SR: That makes sense, Guillaume. It also requires a lot of thinking and collaboration with the people in the discussion to phrase those sentences, though - that is a challenge in itself! And if we’re doing that, 10 themes is probably the max we can handle.
      • SN: So we would get down to 10 in the synthesis phase, and then the conversation would be selecting 3-5 of them to further develop them
      • SN: “If we actually do this theme for the next 10-15 years, what does that mean? What will we be doing?”
    • SR: So a theme is not a word, but rather a phrase - a bit of a problem with a bit of a solution, all in one.
    • SN: It might be worthwhile for us to write some sample theme sentences, so people understand
    • Ed: Sandra makes a good point about resolution.Do we want to put in resolution language?
      • SN: It would include “what this looks like” (end of Cycle 2). Then, they’ve done the convergence and know what “this” is.
      • SN: You have to understand the implications in order to know what to do with them. So when we share strategic direction, it would be at the higher level, but then implications would be there to be worked with as we decide what to do in the strategic plans.
      • GP: Don’t want to just focus on problems - we want some sense of implications. If, in final synthesis, we have 5 themes, we want to be able to spot common threads and implications
    • SN: And this really comes in because right now we don’t know scope/value/content, so we’re trying to create a frame to handle what we think it will be
    • SR: Yes, I read in the doc that there will be a check to see if various tracks come up with completely different suggestions relevant specifically to their needs, to keep those from getting lost in the convergence
  • SN: Also, Asaf gave us some suggestions about having “a funnel for the ones that don’t win”? Maybe some money to fund innovations related to those? We don’t know right now if we can do that, but it’s something to look into. One of the findings from 2010 was that people felt they invested so much work into things that they fell off the map because they weren’t most popular
    • SR: Yes, some things may not end up in the strategy, but might be good project ideas. If we can give them a second chance like that, great!
• SN: At the bottom of the prototype (probably after you looked at it), we are starting to try to sketch out the information flow will take in summary input and then feed it back out. This part is still a work in progress.
  • Groups discuss → Facilitators summarize and plug it into a form to “create the sentences” and identify 1-3 keywords to help with analysis → feed that back out to Meta/local languages
  • SR: So you’re going to create an actual suggestion/theme database?
    • SN: Yes, if we can get it into Labs, we can put it into db format so that we can do better analysis. It would be part of what would help us speed up delivery and preliminary analysis
• SN: Track B is very similar in timing and flow, minus the fact that it’s individual discussions. Sandra had asked if these are parallel tracks or if we’re just convening once -  I don’t really have an answer for that and would be interested in your recommendations
  • SR: Speaking based on my experience in the Netherlands, where language, affiliates, and community overlap: it would feel very artificial to have one track for affiliates and a separate one for the community, because most of the affiliate members are part of that community. It would be an artificial way to structure a discussion.
  • SR: Certainly affiliates have thoughts about issues related to affiliates, but not only about that, and there’s no reason to keep them separate on issues that might also affect, say, communities
  • SN: Yes, unless you have a huge staff or collection of people whose POV you want to target, it could feel really artificial. It’s something to consider.
    • GP: If you had general meetings with “mixed” track members, there is nothing stopping you also having smaller, targeted discussions for, say, “chapter staff” or staff+board
    • SR: Yes, I agree. And I think it should be a choice for the community - maybe some communities will want to keep the discussions separate
    • SN: Yes, so we can make ti clear that affiliates/communities can decide how to mix/not mix the discussions, as long as they make it clear what they did
    • JA: And it will be hard to keep “track A people” from “track B people” because most track A ARE track Bs!
    • SN: And our plan does allow some flexibility. But we can add language making it explicit that we are ok with them flexing as needed.
• SN: Done with prototypes, let’s talk toolkit?

Group B

• SN: Looking into timing for [?] and synthesis flow. Finalizing by 15 might need 2 steps. Need people to show up and not feel like there's a blackbox at the backend. Working on the feedback loops and other discussion points. Want to make sure the convergence happens in a good way, including the input from Tracks C&D.
• NE: Please clarify how we get from 20 themes, to 2 or 1? E.g. if we have 100 in cycle#1, getting down to just 10 is a huge step. Perhaps aim for 20 instead? Easier to prioritize.  Then in cycle#2 move down to 10 or 3 or 2. But need clarity on what process we'll use for this reduction
  • SN: Synthesis and sense-making timespans - will use the summaries taken from the cycle discussion, so it will constantly be being constantly reviewed. So those S&S timespans will be a spike of activity.
  • Risker: Concerned about trying to get down to "1 single theme". (or similar low numbers).
  • SN: If it's a strategic direction, it needs to be clear enough that prioritization of work can happen. E.g. if we can get down to 1, with subthemes, it will be clear enough.
    • (chat) LW: no just 'is it possible', but - are we saying that the whole wikimedia movement strategy process is going to result is ONE THING?
    • (chat) Risker: okay, having heard what you are saying....I actually think this is not a good idea.
    • (chat) FD: but again... not so clear to me who would decide of that simple theme....
    • (chat) LW: doesn't that mean that the "one" theme will result in making a very generic theme - with a lot of 'sub' themes hiding in there anyway.
    • (chat) AZ: maybe this is a stupid thing, but... if you make it just ONE for the sake of simplicity, it really seem the strategy for WMF, not Wikimedia.
    • Florence: then is not too early in the process to select that single direction ?
  • GP: it can be composed of different directions and themes. If it's "we want healthy and sustainable communities" then subthemes might include "good technology" or "good education"", or "partnerships".  The direction is at a higher level and encompasses several themes.
  • Ed: I agree too, but if we loosen the concept of "1 theme", and recognize that towards the end it's more a characterization of multiple themes. It's [less a victor] and more about recognizing the general themes showing our direction.
  • Risker: In last strategy, we focused on grants and tech, and that restricted us way too much.
  • LW: If we just had 1, it would be very generic, but under which would be subthemes. So in trying to reduce down to 1, we'd have an overabundance of subthemes and no clear direction
  • GP: My challenge to the group would be: how do you get alignment across the movement and not everyone doing work in all directions as we’re all doing now.
  • MK: The problem is Wikimedia is many things (A) Software and [?]. (B) The community and people, C) Content. - we could have 3 themes that cover these, but 1 would oversimplify. There is not "1 thing" that is Wikimedia
  • SN: The end is not '1 goal', but '1 direction'.  We need to clarify how a theme translates into a strategic direction. I see it is ambiguous to this group right now. What
  • NE: 1 example that works for me, that applies to many areas: "Facts Matter" - movement role in the 'post-fact world' ;) what can we do in this world? What do we need to achieve these goals in this world? What do our partners need? All these tools or measures - but they're the way to reach our common theme or direction. This helps us focus towards this direction, but also explain why we're doing it
  • GP: The Vision is very broad, the 'someday', the very long-term. Then we have annual-planning, and FDC proposals, and similar, the short-term. The Movement Strategy is the middle-ground, the 2030 goals.
  • AZ: Partly agree with Nicole: 1 theme lets us give subthemes, which is what we already do with the vision. There's also the direction of the WMF - part of but also separate from movement. With 1 single item, you end up making a lot of communities frustrated, because their issues/desires are not covered, or it's too broad.  I think we can design 5, 7, 10 directions for the next 15 years.  I don't see a problem with 10 directions.
  • SN: 1 outcome from the last movement Strategy, was that we were overwhelmed with too many massive directions.  Normally we'd have 2-3 directions, each with subthemes. But we need something to take to Wikimania, that is clear and understandable, and that points to clear areas of work for successful resolution in the future years.
  • GP: Next step, we need to clear up the language (direction, theme, etc). Will do so in email/doc/meeting
• Track B: Do most of you assume, that affiliates might convene 1 conversation: between the affiliate and volunteer, so it would straddle Track A&B at the same time. So it would use [?]
  • NE: Please clarify?  When I do a meeting for WMDE facilitators, will the Track B facilitators be doing something similar?
  • KV: some comments now: 1) We need to make difference between strategic goal and means. For me tech and communities seem to be means, rather than goals.
  • KV: As to number of themes, I think that after cycle 1 we can actually bring it down to a 12 of themes after clustering
  • KV: One of my main concern about the tracks is synchronizing between the tracks. It is hard to find time for that during synthesis and sense-making
  • FD: affiliates often use discussion venues which are not accessible to individuals
  • SN: Some might prefer to merge, and some might prefer to separate.
  • Risker: I suspect that we may wind up with some "louder voices" participating in multiple tracks or forums, we need to be watchful of this
  • MK: Need to clarify priorities, each track will have differences.
  • AZ: I do agree that some chapters would want to do just one in-person conversation.

HH:30 Toolkit frame review

The Core team has worked to begin fleshing out a basic frame and key components for the strategy toolkits as well (Toolkit draft)

:30/:35 notes

Group A

• JA: Sandra, any initial thoughts?
  • SR: I like what it’s becoming!
• Shannon: We are working on adding clarity around facilitation tools
• Shannon: SR, you raised an interesting question about how language liaison roles overlap with (??), especially regarding geographically distinct areas that share a language. My thinking is that the language liaisons will be bolstered by volunteers
• Shannon: to Lucy’s point about whether track lead is coordination with organized groups to keep things from getting too chaotic
• Shannon: Also your point about non-negotiable premises, you raised interesting points about how that’s problematic and comes across as “directing”, and we might want to soften. SR, do you want to talk more about that?
  • SR: I think the toolkit needs guidelines about the culture of this process, the meetings, etc. What i found strange and annoying was that it was very strongly linked to the WMF, the WMF’s values, etc. Yes, those matter, but they are not unique to the WMF - affiliates share them, and some affiliates have different ones! It’s a matter of how it’s worded - focus the wording on the spirit of the process and the spirit in which we’re encouraging community input
  • Shannon: Great point, thank you, we will work on that language to make it more inviting
  • SR: I don’t want to sound unkind, but the WMF is not always viewed with sympathy throughout the movement. Saying “we’re partners, not competitors” may be perceived as untrue by some in the movement, who have perceived the WMF as competitors
• Shannon: that’s about all I have for the toolkit.
• SR: Yep, with it still being a work in progress. I look forward to seeing it progress!

Group B

• SN: The 1 point that needs more discussion, is the role of the language liaison, versus volunteer facilitators from throughout the communities. We'd appreciate ideas about you'd define those roles?
• The goal of the background/intro, is to give context and frontload information, still to be developed.
• The call for facilitators, the need to get discussions going, the difference between tracks. But firstly to get people into the discussions. Encourage them to do pre-reading, leveraging the knowledge of the movement. Then preliminary prompts on wiki/in-person, and facilitating discussions. Finally summarizing, so that it can be seen by facilitators in other communities, who can translate to their own language/community.
  • FD: I think a step that could be outlined would be that the leader should clearly decide which venues will be used to discuss and inform
• SN: Step 2: How can we most effectively use the liaisons, in addition/collaboration with the volunteers?
  • MK: What will be the role of community volunteers? It was not clear to people I was talking to last week, what their actual tasks would be. The summarization part is now clear, but we need details on how exactly they should start and facilitate: e.g. make pages/pages, give example page-names, send emails, what else?
  • SN: Agreed, we've got some, but need more. We've got a placeholder area for additional suggestions, too.

HH:45 Framing Review: Guided Discussion

The Core team has worked to post some key points for the framing of the movement strategy to meta (Framing draft)

:45 notes

Group A

• GP: Sandra, I don’t know if you’ve had time to look at the draft on Meta. Basically it tries to answer the question of “what do we want everyone joining these discussion to know about the movement and the discussion”. So a very short intro about the goals, the process, etc so they can decide if it’s something they want to be part of. Then a short section about “what a movement is”, then a pretty big section about what we know about our movement today (key theme: diversity of actors and roles across movement), how we will measure success, then lastly, “what do we know about what the world will look like in 2030?”
• GP: Then for each of those topics, we have started to add a few characteristics about what we want to convey, why, etc. Space is at a premium (30 slides at most) so we need strong justification for everything we decide to include
• SR: So it’s going to be a slide deck in the end?
  • GP: yes, and uploaded to the wiki. Each slide would have a dedicated wiki page that adds more references and details. But self-contained slide deck (and maybe video) too, since not everyone is comfortable on-wiki
• SR: Yes, could you make a video, or text slides?
  • GP: Yes, we’re trying to make a video that includes the slideshow with an explanatory voiceover, but I don’t know if we will end up being able to do that
  • SR: Yeah, it’s a lot of info to take in, even for wikipedians!
• GP: If you look at the list of themes, it’s a difficult exercise in selecting what we want everyone to know - do you think the current selection is good? Anything notable missing?
  • SR: Not really anything missing. I was wondering whether we should put “what we know about the future” at the beginning, though, since it sets the mind to think in terms of a radically different world, instead of starting out with a focus on what’s going on now. Starting with “now” might prime people to think about that instead of “2030”, and that might block their willingness to make large/fundamental changes
  • SN: Yes, and there’s a sense of urgency about the future focus. We’re trying to find a way to make people feel that it’s important to join the process.
  • GP: In my mind, I put it in “now” and then “2030” order so they wouldn’t focus too much on “now”, as well! [so we’re aiming for the same thing, just unsure about the right order to get it]. Maybe it’s all in the wording?
• SR: No other thoughts for now.
• SN: But you have to answer the Big Question: Have we made improvements since last week?
  • SR: Last week I put you on 8, but you have improved, so “heading toward 9”. It’s never going to be perfect given our constraints, but I think this is getting toward the best it can be. And if it’s never perfect, it will not be for lack of trying to make it as good as possible!
    • Ed: Yes, for some of these slides, they don’t exist right now, and there’s a reason for that: we don’t know enough about the complexity of those topics to adequately write them up! So we’re talking to staff and community to try to learn enough to be able to fill the framing in. But there are also time challenges - things like video take longer (both to create and to consume) than text-only. But we are hopeful that we can eventually include a video, even if it doesn’t end up being in the beginning!
  • SR: when we had the ED meeting in Switzerland and talked about the future, one interesting point was that we receive more funding from the Global South than we give. Also that global populationis changing (core demo. That knowledge affected the choices we made later on in that meeting about priorities - so it was good that it came up in the beginning!

Group B

• GP:: Step 3: The page on meta in a nutshell - the framing is there as a base layer, a common understanding that participants should know. Lot of high-level info, across many topics. Goals, process, timelines, responsibilities; defining a 'movement'; describing our movement now, and what we can guess about the future; describing our diversity, and our commonalities; what we know about editor trends, readers, affiliates; measures/,metrics of success; where we could be in 15 years as a planet, and where partners might be, and technology trends; - Does this make sense? Any important topics missed?
  • KVB: My comments here: http://www.wikicomment.ut.ee/article/?u=6549774
  • Ed: Lots of resources out there, that represents the movements collective knowledge/wisdom. There's a desire to have it be condesnse to perhaps 30 slides/minutes, so that newcomers can easily absorb at least some of our movement's history.  Is that desired? Or would we want people to go through
  • AZ: I'd want people to go through it
  • MK: Agreed it would be nice, but we can't expect everyone to read it all. Many people won't read more than 1 screen.
  • GP: Aim to get a concise text version, and concise video version, to suit different learning-styles. What is in this framing, is the basic info, there's more details linked to in each section.
  • (chat) Risker: I tend to agree - would provide some increased coherency in the discussion processes
  • (chat) FD: Maybe missing information about "outsiders". It currently loooks too insular. Miss external forces
  • (chat) NE: Probably one version for people with only 10 mins time, and one for people with 30 or 3ven 60 mins time.
  • (chat) AZ: 30 slides with images are always good
  • (chat) NE: but definitely yay! for a video!
  • Chat...
  • Risker: yes, agree with Nicole on both points
  • KV: Agree with Florence on external perspectives. Also I think trends in open knowledge field is a must have
  • FD: figures, figures, figures
  • MK: not everyone loves figures
  • GP: Florence, yes, Kaarel also left comments about this. I agree it's missing.
  • FD: Liam, but this page is for framing. Framing will help track A or B participants to brainstorm better
  • MK: Liam: I think this about external view of our movement
  • FD: as in "political tendencies".Perception by education sector. Censorship pressure etc.
  • Risker: interesting point, I think there is some real value in having people who focus on synthesis
• SN: Step 5: important to bring it all back and centralize - this role will be really important to synthesize it. We'll be creating a form, that will automatically post in a consistent way on meta. Then other external input can be easily added. There'll also be a database [?]. There might be facilitators who just want to synthesize
• SN: 1-10 scale? Ensure enough time for converging in the backend, framing, toolkit, and other new additions.
  • MK: 8. Will add+1 for a Berlin (like, asking people to give first feedback on 20 Mar and let them get Berlin feedback on that) and +1 for a better guide for facilitators
    • +1s from Jaime and Florence
  • AZ: 7 - Yes I am a bit reluctant with excellent grades for "1 theme" thing
  • Risker: 8
  • NE: 8
  • FD: 6
  • KV: 6.5 - Taking away one point and end up in 6.5 Mostly because I have become more aware and wiser
  • LW: 8 - I worry about the 'single theme' becoming too generic (but as you say that is a language/clarity question)
• KV: it is good to get the toolkit before our eyes! Deduction of 1 point does not mean I do not appreciate the work done!

HH:55 Wrap-up and Next Steps

:55 notes

Group A

• JA: And now, the wrap up! Committee tasks:
  • Continue adding feedback to prototype drafts (by 12 Feb)
  • Ditto, on toolkit and frame draft (iterating over coming weeks)
• Core team tasks:
  • Make prototypes and plan and post to meta (13 Feb)
  • Second iteration of toolkits for next meeting
  • Take feedback into framing draft
• Jaime will be adding new calendar events for SC members who have agreed to stay on
• Suzie: we are putting together a shortlist of people willing to participate in beta. Would you be willing to join a conversation in the last week of february?
  • SR: In principle, yes, but I’d have to check with with some others. Can I give final answer Monday?
  • SN: Of course!
  • SR: But if I can, I am very willing to try.
• Jaime: Lucy has added some comments to the notes. Please give those a read, particularly re: community-vs-affiliate meeting organization

Group B

[as above]