1,549
edits
Difference between revisions of "Meeting Notes 2023-01-11"
Meeting Notes 2023-01-11 (view source)
Revision as of 20:26, 11 January 2023
, 20:26, 11 January 2023no edit summary
(Created page with "== Agenda == * Proposal: working groups") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
=== Proposal: Working groups === | |||
* Proposal: working groups | * Proposal: working groups | ||
Hey Sudoers, | |||
I'd like to submit a proposal in advance of a meeting next *Wednesday, | |||
January 11th at 8 PM:* | |||
*The proposal: *I propose we organize working groups for membership, | |||
facilities, finances, promotion, and general administration. | |||
*The goals:* I think we should focus in 2023 on bringing in new people. | |||
Hosting more events. Finding new sources of revenue like grants. Organizing | |||
the tools, repairing the roof, and installing a mezzanine. I think all of | |||
these would be more attainable if we had a bit of structure that makes it | |||
easier for new people -- and old! -- to find similarly minded collaborators | |||
and organize and communicate to do these things collaboratively. | |||
*The details: *I see three elements to this proposal, which I'm listing to | |||
make it easier to offer suggestions or alterations: | |||
*1)* I think we should define a set of core functions which require | |||
coordination: membership, facilities, finances, promotion, and | |||
administration (miscellaneous general operation). | |||
*2)* I think we should promote coordination by establishing working groups, | |||
primarily consisting of an email list and a wiki page, but with broad | |||
leeway in how each group wants to organize and communicate. The facilities | |||
working group could decide to set up a Discord channel. The building group | |||
could choose to have regular in person meetings. The admin group could | |||
operate mostly on Signal. These don't have to be dictated in this proposal, | |||
as long as everyone knows how to get in touch with these working groups. | |||
*3)* I propose that participation and role assignment be presumed open, but | |||
managed by the groups themselves. I am actively choosing not to propose | |||
that they groups have a leader or a minimum number of participants, or a | |||
qualification to join. As proposed, I imagine anyone who likes fixing 3D | |||
printers when they clog can sign up for the facilities working group and | |||
now they're an equal member to everyone else. But if the membership working | |||
group is just one person answering new member questions, that's fine. The | |||
finance group and promotion group will presumably set guidelines on who has | |||
login credentials for accounts. Under this proposal, anyone can join any | |||
group and no member of a group has elevated privileges unless they | |||
establish them by consensus separate from this proposal. | |||
What do you all think? Would you like to join any of these groups? I'd like | |||
to get lots of feedback and then discuss this next Wednesday to incorporate | |||
the feedback received over email. | |||
Cheers, | |||
Andy | |||