nerdstein · October 6, 2017 15:02
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt


 Key takeaways (captured throughout meeting):

 1. It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.
 2. its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything
 3. I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group
 4. what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.
 5. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so  there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.
 6. My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.
 7. One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can.
 8. I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard. Post to general before meeting starts.
 9. So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?
 10. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting? there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?

 Volunteers for community site efforts:

 1. Mike Herchel - https://www.drupal.org/node/2890801


 Transcript:
 nerdstein [10:11 AM] 
 One thing that really stood out to me from the previous chat was a desire for clarity and transparency. I was curious if we could generate more ideas on how we could achieve that as a community.


 rachel_norfolk [10:13 AM] 
 It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.
 3 replies Last reply today at 10:47 AM View thread


 rachel_norfolk [10:13 AM] 
 It's a project - treat it like one


 ultimike [10:14 AM] 
 @nerdstein Do you have any examples of how other open-source projects surface their governance information?


 acrosman [10:15 AM] 
 I think one of the challenges is that when people want transparency they ask for _more_ information. But Drupal community has many information fire hoses.  So often its not that the information isn't available, but that to get it you have to read through 30 100+ comment issues, find three meeting summaries, and other similar things.


 nerdstein [10:15 AM] 
 @rachel_norfolk - is there more information on Rocketship?
 1 reply Today at 10:17 AM View thread


 nerdstein [10:15 AM] 
 @ultimike - i provided some examples in a blog post i wrote: http://nerdstein.net/blog/community-governance-considerations-open-source-projects


 [10:16] 
 @acrosman - great point, do you see any opportunities to consolidate or curate information in fewer channels?


 rachel_norfolk [10:18 AM] 
 @acrosman its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything
 


 acrosman 
 [10:18 AM] 
 @nerdstein Opportunities abound.  Resources to _do_ the consolidation and summarization are harder for me to envision.

 nerdstein [10:19 AM] 
 @acrosman - I would be curious to hear more about strategies.

 sugaroverflow [10:19 AM] 
 someone to write the summaries feels like overkill

 [10:19] 
 if we could aggregate things in something like rocketship that would be useful (I don't know much except I've looked at the screenshots) (edited)

 rachel_norfolk
 [10:20 AM] 
 Well, that's essentially what the TheWeeklyDrop is, @sugaroverflow, and that seems rather popular!

 2 replies Last reply today at 10:20 AM View thread

 nerdstein [10:20 AM] 
 @ultimike - one example that i often point to is Kubernetes community site: https://kubernetes.io/community/ --- it captures the specific communication channels, has a calendar of community events, and, I believe, gives a nice overview.
 Kubernetes
 Community
 Production-Grade Container Orchestration


 davidhernandez
 [10:22 AM] 
 the kubernetes thing would be awesome.


 nerdstein [10:22 AM] 
 how official is The Weekly Drop? also, how does it ensure it covers the broad community?


 megansanicki
 [10:22 AM] 
 I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group



 davidhernandez [10:22 AM] 
 what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.



 rachel_norfolk
 [10:24 AM] 
 Whatever we can do at drupal.org/community, it needs constant editorial. Essentially TheWeeklyDrop but at that path


 [10:24] 
 It's effort


 acrosman 
 [10:25 AM] 
 It's been a very long time since I did basic things like create an account on D.o.  What (if anything) do we send currently as a welcome.  Is there a "Getting to know the community" type guide that gets sent to new account holders to encourage them to explore and give them paths forward?


 nerdstein [10:25 AM] 
 @rachel_norfolk - the Kubernetes site doesn't seem to be. the most dynamic things are the Google Calendars. possibly this effort could be split across the various working groups to maintain their own.


 rachel_norfolk
 [10:26 AM] 
 At the moment, we don't do enough to sell the advantages of even creating that account, @acrosman


 acrosman [10:26 AM] 
 @rachel_norfolk yeah I have colleagues who struggled with "I have an account on D.o now. But what's it for?"



 rachel_norfolk
 [10:27 AM] 
 (yes, we know the best reason is so they can buy their DA membership, @megansanicki :wink: )


 megansanicki [10:29 AM] 
 Just ducked in to share my thoughts. Going to duck back out. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so  there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.


 gdemet [10:29 AM] 
 @megansanicki We're getting a blog? Yay!

 drnikki [10:29 AM] 
 @megansanicki would that also include groups like DD&I?


 rachel_norfolk
 [10:29 AM] 
 Excellent!!

 drnikki [10:29 AM] 
 Or only “official” groups?

 [10:30] 
 Would it include groups that have open membership?

 megansanicki [10:30 AM] 
 I think it should be all groups and all groups should made official under one community roof


 [10:31] 
 (Megan's opinion)


 nerdstein [10:31 AM] 
 does anyone have interest in volunteering to help develop a community communication strategy? my sense is that would help address several points raised in this meeting.


 drnikki
 [10:31 AM] 
 That’s a world of trouble if so…


 mherchel [10:31 AM] 
 I volunteered to help out with the Community page a while ago (https://www.drupal.org/node/2890801). The offer still stands
 Drupal.org
 Community page updates (Drupical, Drupal Answers, etc)
 The Community page is missing some key details and doesn't accurately affect the vibrant community around Drupal. A couple low-hanging fruit: List https://www.drupical.com/ as a resource to find community events. It's extremely difficult to find groups/meetups/events on GDO List Drupal Answers under a community support section (along with the forums). Potentially migrate to new documentation content type?
 Jun 29th at 12:37 PM
 


 drnikki
 [10:31 AM] 
 @nerdstein who would lead the effort to create a community communication strategy?


 sugaroverflow [10:32 AM] 
 if the community blogs are open to all the groups, that's going to need moderation


 nerdstein [10:32 AM] 
 @drnikki i'd be happy to help lead this if that is something the community would support.


 [10:32] 
 i wrote a lot about this in my blog posts.

 drnikki
 [10:32 AM] 
 @sugaroverflow and moderation is a form of power.


 rachel_norfolk [10:32 AM] 
 Yes, it's a reality of the World that it will need moderation

 drnikki
 [10:33 AM] 
 A community communication strategy seems like something that should be lead by the people actually running the community, tbh, because it will be informed by community values.


 [10:33] 
 And we still don’t have a sense of who is in the community or what the values are


 mlhess [10:33 AM] 
 That page (and sub pages) could be moved into the new doc format which gives rights to it via og


 [10:33] 
 (sorry to jump into implementations)

 megansanicki
 [10:34 AM] 
 @drnikki did my answer help? Official needs to be defined, etc, but I assume that this group would figure out that stuff out. I'm open to this group defining who gets to communicate through this section.


 ultimike [10:35 AM] 
 This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. We want to surface governance info more easily so that we can better solve issues like what groups are “official”.

 drnikki
 [10:35 AM] 
 @megansanicki kind of, thank you.

 nerdstein [10:36 AM] 
 @ultimike agreed. and i think it's problematic if we pile on more responsibilities to people with a lot on their plate as-is.

 ultimike [10:36 AM] 
 My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.


 megansanicki [10:37 AM] 
 I imagine the governance work needs to be done and then the communication strategy...

 [10:37] 
 Oh that's smart @ultimike

 rachel_norfolk [10:37 AM] 
 So, remembering we started with the words "clarity & transparency", it seems we need to be able to ensure that we move from a place where these are difficult to achieve to a better place. It looks like a whole programme of small, fixed length projects. A list might look something like:
 1/ Agree what we mean by Community
 2/ Create processes and tools that allow us to communicate (both ways) with that Community
 3/ Use the processes and tools to ensure people stay informed of decisions made, how they are made and how to have input
 4/ Build that governance structure


 nerdstein [10:38 AM] 
 @megansanicki by work, it almost sounds like sorting out how we establish a group to  help evolve our governance.
 5 replies Last reply today at 10:48 AM View thread

 rachel_norfolk [10:38 AM] 
 of course, 
 0/ Define the current state :slightly_smiling_face:

 [10:39] 
 But each one of those projects can be fixed length. But keep them _small_

 drnikki [10:39 AM] 
 “us to communicate (both ways) with that Community” makes it sound like there’s an “us” and a “community” and if so, we’ll need to make that explicit also

 [10:39] 
 I see myself as part of the community and that’s it



 rachel_norfolk [10:39 AM] 
 Just my language, @drnikki


 [10:39] 
 nothing meant more than that


 [10:40] 
 and yes, we are all part of the community (whatever that means)


 sugaroverflow [10:44 AM] 
 I'm reading a lot about "doing the governance work" and that this governance needs to be evolved by the community, but I'm not seeing any new faces in this discussion. I'm concerned that this governance isn't going to be transparent and it's just going to be handed down to the community like all the previous decisions/blog posts on this subject.



 rachel_norfolk [10:45 AM] 
 So what would you expect to see that would make you think of a process as transparent, @sugaroverflow? Maybe that is step "-1/"?


 nerdstein [10:45 AM] 
 @sugaroverflow how could we encourage broader participation?


 sugaroverflow [10:46 AM] 
 I mean this with respect, but I don't think either the CWG or us from DD&I have an accurate idea of what the community really wants from governance. And I think it's great that we're coming up with tools and a plan, etc, but where's the community in this discussion?

 I think step 0 is figuring out how to get more people in this conversation. I don't have a surefire way of how to do that, but I think that's what we should be discussing here


 [10:47] 
 I've been frustrated with all the blog posts and webinars and things on governance so far and I feel they're all coming from the same place and the same people. If I feel that way, can you imagine how a regular not-so-engaged member of the community feels?


 rachel_norfolk [10:47 AM] 
 I might have to challenge back there and ask does greater participation actually increase transparency?


 davidhernandez
 [10:47 AM] 
 I agree that we should be careful about jumping straight to defining solutions. We need to continue progress at defining the problems, wants, and needs.


 sugaroverflow [10:47 AM] 
 I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard.

 drnikki
 [10:47 AM] 
 I wouldn’t say there’s a direct correlation between participation and transparency, no.  But that doesn’t mean participation is not important.

 rachel_norfolk [10:48 AM] 
 I don't disagree with you - I just want to surface the things we need to show - and why


 acrosman 
 [10:49 AM] 
 For me some of this gets back to the communication strategy question (which I tend to geek out about anyway), but it seems like part of introducing the current state of governance should also include re-introducing the community to itself (itself? ourselves? both?)

 [10:49] 
 Talking about either governance or the community without clearly linking them seems like an easy mistake to make.

 rachel_norfolk
 [10:50 AM] 
 And that's (partly) why I've tried to talk more about people than things recently, @acrosman


 nerdstein [10:52 AM] 
 @sugaroverflow do you have a sense of how we could better promote these meetings as a way of increasing attendance and broadening perspectives? (edited)

 sugaroverflow [10:53 AM] 
 maybe posting in #general before the meeting starts?

 rachel_norfolk [10:53 AM] 
 So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?


 sugaroverflow [10:53 AM] 
 reaching out to the people in IRC channels?

 nerdstein [10:53 AM] 
 of note, the meeting will be officially wrapping up in about five minutes.

 sugaroverflow [10:53 AM] 
 Yes, absolutely defining what community means, and what a contributor is.

 megansanicki [10:53 AM] 
 Oh this is a meeting. Hehe. Sorry

 sugaroverflow [10:54 AM] 
 @nerdstein I saw you posted on twitter and that was good. You have a lot of Drupal followers, but I don't see any new faces here. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting, there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?

 [10:55] 
 I really wish there were more faces in this discussion because I think we all have heard each other's opinions already and "current state of governance" seems to have been defined by the same people too.


 [10:56] 
 This is not to say that I don't appreciate the work or effort everyone here is doing.


 nerdstein [10:56 AM] 
 are we confident more people want to be participating or are interested? i don't want to force it.


 sugaroverflow [10:56 AM] 
 We need to be more clear about how this will affect people - I think they'll be interested then


 rachel_norfolk [10:56 AM] 
 I can't say I'm confident of that


 davidhernandez
 [10:56 AM] 
 I think it is hard to get people involved in something they don't already feel they are a part of.



 rachel_norfolk [10:57 AM] 
 General opinion I often hear is just "get on with it"


 [10:57] 
 THat might be more of a European feedback than elsewhere.


 sugaroverflow [10:57 AM] 
 I :100: agree with this! But I think we still have time to turn it around and include them, _here's how this affects you_, _here's what we want to know from you_
 davidhernandez
 I think it is hard to get people involved in something they don't already feel they are a part of.
 Posted in #governanceToday at 10:56 AM


 davidhernandez
 [10:57 AM] 
 And that is part of it. We want the community to lead things, but people are very passive and assuming someone else will be taking care of it. (edited)

 nerdstein [10:58 AM] 
 Sorry to cut this short. I'd like to post some of the key takeaways I've been gathering from the talk so we can vote and share. Also, if anyone has any key takeaways I missed, please share them,

 megansanicki
 [10:58 AM] 
 Just four thoughts. 1) 7 years ago I didn't know what governance was, so I never knew to care ( until I got pulled into the work 5ish years ago). The word governance may not resonate with many. 2) please know that I'm happy to help make d.o/community and other areas improved for community understanding. 3 I find many need a proposal in front of them to comment on rather participate from the ground up. You may want to try that approach 4) One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can. (edited)

 nerdstein [10:58 AM] 
 1. It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.

 [10:58] 
 2. its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything


 davidhernandez [10:58 AM] 
 We (the people running these meetings) are trying to be hands off in how the process goes and decisions made, but at some point if anything is to get done people have to step up to do it.


 nerdstein [10:58 AM] 
 3. I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group



 [10:59] 
 4. what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.



 [10:59] 
 5. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so  there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.



 [10:59] 
 6. My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.


 rachel_norfolk
 [10:59 AM] 
 Again, I think we need to look at what Megan did with the DrupalCon EU. Setting a short, fixed-scope project to go a short distance has (eventually) gone down REALLY well with the community. It's a model people are aware of now and should be re-used.


 nerdstein [10:59 AM] 
 7. One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can.


 [10:59] 
 8. I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard. Post to general before meeting starts.



 [10:59] 
 9. So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?


 [11:00] 
 10. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting? there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?


 [11:00] 
 Thanks for all who joined today; I'll be taking the transcript now, as previously noted.


	Key takeaways (captured throughout meeting):

	1. It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.
	2. its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything
	3. I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group
	4. what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.
	5. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.
	6. My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.
	7. One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can.
	8. I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard. Post to general before meeting starts.
	9. So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?
	10. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting? there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?

	Volunteers for community site efforts:

	1. Mike Herchel - https://www.drupal.org/node/2890801


	Transcript:
	nerdstein [10:11 AM]
	One thing that really stood out to me from the previous chat was a desire for clarity and transparency. I was curious if we could generate more ideas on how we could achieve that as a community.


	rachel_norfolk [10:13 AM]
	It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.
	3 replies Last reply today at 10:47 AM View thread


	rachel_norfolk [10:13 AM]
	It's a project - treat it like one


	ultimike [10:14 AM]
	@nerdstein Do you have any examples of how other open-source projects surface their governance information?


	acrosman [10:15 AM]
	I think one of the challenges is that when people want transparency they ask for _more_ information. But Drupal community has many information fire hoses. So often its not that the information isn't available, but that to get it you have to read through 30 100+ comment issues, find three meeting summaries, and other similar things.


	nerdstein [10:15 AM]
	@rachel_norfolk - is there more information on Rocketship?
	1 reply Today at 10:17 AM View thread


	nerdstein [10:15 AM]
	@ultimike - i provided some examples in a blog post i wrote: http://nerdstein.net/blog/community-governance-considerations-open-source-projects


	[10:16]
	@acrosman - great point, do you see any opportunities to consolidate or curate information in fewer channels?


	rachel_norfolk [10:18 AM]
	@acrosman its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything



	acrosman
	[10:18 AM]
	@nerdstein Opportunities abound. Resources to _do_ the consolidation and summarization are harder for me to envision.

	nerdstein [10:19 AM]
	@acrosman - I would be curious to hear more about strategies.

	sugaroverflow [10:19 AM]
	someone to write the summaries feels like overkill

	[10:19]
	if we could aggregate things in something like rocketship that would be useful (I don't know much except I've looked at the screenshots) (edited)

	rachel_norfolk
	[10:20 AM]
	Well, that's essentially what the TheWeeklyDrop is, @sugaroverflow, and that seems rather popular!

	2 replies Last reply today at 10:20 AM View thread

	nerdstein [10:20 AM]
	@ultimike - one example that i often point to is Kubernetes community site: https://kubernetes.io/community/ --- it captures the specific communication channels, has a calendar of community events, and, I believe, gives a nice overview.
	Kubernetes
	Community
	Production-Grade Container Orchestration


	davidhernandez
	[10:22 AM]
	the kubernetes thing would be awesome.


	nerdstein [10:22 AM]
	how official is The Weekly Drop? also, how does it ensure it covers the broad community?


	megansanicki
	[10:22 AM]
	I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group



	davidhernandez [10:22 AM]
	what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.



	rachel_norfolk
	[10:24 AM]
	Whatever we can do at drupal.org/community, it needs constant editorial. Essentially TheWeeklyDrop but at that path


	[10:24]
	It's effort


	acrosman
	[10:25 AM]
	It's been a very long time since I did basic things like create an account on D.o. What (if anything) do we send currently as a welcome. Is there a "Getting to know the community" type guide that gets sent to new account holders to encourage them to explore and give them paths forward?


	nerdstein [10:25 AM]
	@rachel_norfolk - the Kubernetes site doesn't seem to be. the most dynamic things are the Google Calendars. possibly this effort could be split across the various working groups to maintain their own.


	rachel_norfolk
	[10:26 AM]
	At the moment, we don't do enough to sell the advantages of even creating that account, @acrosman


	acrosman [10:26 AM]
	@rachel_norfolk yeah I have colleagues who struggled with "I have an account on D.o now. But what's it for?"



	rachel_norfolk
	[10:27 AM]
	(yes, we know the best reason is so they can buy their DA membership, @megansanicki :wink: )


	megansanicki [10:29 AM]
	Just ducked in to share my thoughts. Going to duck back out. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.


	gdemet [10:29 AM]
	@megansanicki We're getting a blog? Yay!

	drnikki [10:29 AM]
	@megansanicki would that also include groups like DD&I?


	rachel_norfolk
	[10:29 AM]
	Excellent!!

	drnikki [10:29 AM]
	Or only “official” groups?

	[10:30]
	Would it include groups that have open membership?

	megansanicki [10:30 AM]
	I think it should be all groups and all groups should made official under one community roof


	[10:31]
	(Megan's opinion)


	nerdstein [10:31 AM]
	does anyone have interest in volunteering to help develop a community communication strategy? my sense is that would help address several points raised in this meeting.


	drnikki
	[10:31 AM]
	That’s a world of trouble if so…


	mherchel [10:31 AM]
	I volunteered to help out with the Community page a while ago (https://www.drupal.org/node/2890801). The offer still stands
	Drupal.org
	Community page updates (Drupical, Drupal Answers, etc)
	The Community page is missing some key details and doesn't accurately affect the vibrant community around Drupal. A couple low-hanging fruit: List https://www.drupical.com/ as a resource to find community events. It's extremely difficult to find groups/meetups/events on GDO List Drupal Answers under a community support section (along with the forums). Potentially migrate to new documentation content type?
	Jun 29th at 12:37 PM



	drnikki
	[10:31 AM]
	@nerdstein who would lead the effort to create a community communication strategy?


	sugaroverflow [10:32 AM]
	if the community blogs are open to all the groups, that's going to need moderation


	nerdstein [10:32 AM]
	@drnikki i'd be happy to help lead this if that is something the community would support.


	[10:32]
	i wrote a lot about this in my blog posts.

	drnikki
	[10:32 AM]
	@sugaroverflow and moderation is a form of power.


	rachel_norfolk [10:32 AM]
	Yes, it's a reality of the World that it will need moderation

	drnikki
	[10:33 AM]
	A community communication strategy seems like something that should be lead by the people actually running the community, tbh, because it will be informed by community values.


	[10:33]
	And we still don’t have a sense of who is in the community or what the values are


	mlhess [10:33 AM]
	That page (and sub pages) could be moved into the new doc format which gives rights to it via og


	[10:33]
	(sorry to jump into implementations)

	megansanicki
	[10:34 AM]
	@drnikki did my answer help? Official needs to be defined, etc, but I assume that this group would figure out that stuff out. I'm open to this group defining who gets to communicate through this section.


	ultimike [10:35 AM]
	This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. We want to surface governance info more easily so that we can better solve issues like what groups are “official”.

	drnikki
	[10:35 AM]
	@megansanicki kind of, thank you.

	nerdstein [10:36 AM]
	@ultimike agreed. and i think it's problematic if we pile on more responsibilities to people with a lot on their plate as-is.

	ultimike [10:36 AM]
	My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.


	megansanicki [10:37 AM]
	I imagine the governance work needs to be done and then the communication strategy...

	[10:37]
	Oh that's smart @ultimike

	rachel_norfolk [10:37 AM]
	So, remembering we started with the words "clarity & transparency", it seems we need to be able to ensure that we move from a place where these are difficult to achieve to a better place. It looks like a whole programme of small, fixed length projects. A list might look something like:
	1/ Agree what we mean by Community
	2/ Create processes and tools that allow us to communicate (both ways) with that Community
	3/ Use the processes and tools to ensure people stay informed of decisions made, how they are made and how to have input
	4/ Build that governance structure


	nerdstein [10:38 AM]
	@megansanicki by work, it almost sounds like sorting out how we establish a group to help evolve our governance.
	5 replies Last reply today at 10:48 AM View thread

	rachel_norfolk [10:38 AM]
	of course,
	0/ Define the current state :slightly_smiling_face:

	[10:39]
	But each one of those projects can be fixed length. But keep them _small_

	drnikki [10:39 AM]
	“us to communicate (both ways) with that Community” makes it sound like there’s an “us” and a “community” and if so, we’ll need to make that explicit also

	[10:39]
	I see myself as part of the community and that’s it



	rachel_norfolk [10:39 AM]
	Just my language, @drnikki


	[10:39]
	nothing meant more than that


	[10:40]
	and yes, we are all part of the community (whatever that means)


	sugaroverflow [10:44 AM]
	I'm reading a lot about "doing the governance work" and that this governance needs to be evolved by the community, but I'm not seeing any new faces in this discussion. I'm concerned that this governance isn't going to be transparent and it's just going to be handed down to the community like all the previous decisions/blog posts on this subject.



	rachel_norfolk [10:45 AM]
	So what would you expect to see that would make you think of a process as transparent, @sugaroverflow? Maybe that is step "-1/"?


	nerdstein [10:45 AM]
	@sugaroverflow how could we encourage broader participation?


	sugaroverflow [10:46 AM]
	I mean this with respect, but I don't think either the CWG or us from DD&I have an accurate idea of what the community really wants from governance. And I think it's great that we're coming up with tools and a plan, etc, but where's the community in this discussion?

	I think step 0 is figuring out how to get more people in this conversation. I don't have a surefire way of how to do that, but I think that's what we should be discussing here


	[10:47]
	I've been frustrated with all the blog posts and webinars and things on governance so far and I feel they're all coming from the same place and the same people. If I feel that way, can you imagine how a regular not-so-engaged member of the community feels?


	rachel_norfolk [10:47 AM]
	I might have to challenge back there and ask does greater participation actually increase transparency?


	davidhernandez
	[10:47 AM]
	I agree that we should be careful about jumping straight to defining solutions. We need to continue progress at defining the problems, wants, and needs.


	sugaroverflow [10:47 AM]
	I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard.

	drnikki
	[10:47 AM]
	I wouldn’t say there’s a direct correlation between participation and transparency, no. But that doesn’t mean participation is not important.

	rachel_norfolk [10:48 AM]
	I don't disagree with you - I just want to surface the things we need to show - and why


	acrosman
	[10:49 AM]
	For me some of this gets back to the communication strategy question (which I tend to geek out about anyway), but it seems like part of introducing the current state of governance should also include re-introducing the community to itself (itself? ourselves? both?)

	[10:49]
	Talking about either governance or the community without clearly linking them seems like an easy mistake to make.

	rachel_norfolk
	[10:50 AM]
	And that's (partly) why I've tried to talk more about people than things recently, @acrosman


	nerdstein [10:52 AM]
	@sugaroverflow do you have a sense of how we could better promote these meetings as a way of increasing attendance and broadening perspectives? (edited)

	sugaroverflow [10:53 AM]
	maybe posting in #general before the meeting starts?

	rachel_norfolk [10:53 AM]
	So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?


	sugaroverflow [10:53 AM]
	reaching out to the people in IRC channels?

	nerdstein [10:53 AM]
	of note, the meeting will be officially wrapping up in about five minutes.

	sugaroverflow [10:53 AM]
	Yes, absolutely defining what community means, and what a contributor is.

	megansanicki [10:53 AM]
	Oh this is a meeting. Hehe. Sorry

	sugaroverflow [10:54 AM]
	@nerdstein I saw you posted on twitter and that was good. You have a lot of Drupal followers, but I don't see any new faces here. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting, there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?

	[10:55]
	I really wish there were more faces in this discussion because I think we all have heard each other's opinions already and "current state of governance" seems to have been defined by the same people too.


	[10:56]
	This is not to say that I don't appreciate the work or effort everyone here is doing.


	nerdstein [10:56 AM]
	are we confident more people want to be participating or are interested? i don't want to force it.


	sugaroverflow [10:56 AM]
	We need to be more clear about how this will affect people - I think they'll be interested then


	rachel_norfolk [10:56 AM]
	I can't say I'm confident of that


	davidhernandez
	[10:56 AM]
	I think it is hard to get people involved in something they don't already feel they are a part of.



	rachel_norfolk [10:57 AM]
	General opinion I often hear is just "get on with it"


	[10:57]
	THat might be more of a European feedback than elsewhere.


	sugaroverflow [10:57 AM]
	I :100: agree with this! But I think we still have time to turn it around and include them, _here's how this affects you_, _here's what we want to know from you_
	davidhernandez
	I think it is hard to get people involved in something they don't already feel they are a part of.
	Posted in #governanceToday at 10:56 AM


	davidhernandez
	[10:57 AM]
	And that is part of it. We want the community to lead things, but people are very passive and assuming someone else will be taking care of it. (edited)

	nerdstein [10:58 AM]
	Sorry to cut this short. I'd like to post some of the key takeaways I've been gathering from the talk so we can vote and share. Also, if anyone has any key takeaways I missed, please share them,

	megansanicki
	[10:58 AM]
	Just four thoughts. 1) 7 years ago I didn't know what governance was, so I never knew to care ( until I got pulled into the work 5ish years ago). The word governance may not resonate with many. 2) please know that I'm happy to help make d.o/community and other areas improved for community understanding. 3 I find many need a proposal in front of them to comment on rather participate from the ground up. You may want to try that approach 4) One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can. (edited)

	nerdstein [10:58 AM]
	1. It strikes me that having all the information in a single place that is easily digestible would help a lot. I would be tempted to suggest taking with Gabor about his Rocketship thing and if it could be adapted to hold all the info and ongoing issues.

	[10:58]
	2. its a personal bugbear of mine that the way we disseminate info across the project is a bit unorganised. Very hard to find anything


	davidhernandez [10:58 AM]
	We (the people running these meetings) are trying to be hands off in how the process goes and decisions made, but at some point if anything is to get done people have to step up to do it.


	nerdstein [10:58 AM]
	3. I'd love to see drupal.org/community be reworked and owned by a working group



	[10:59]
	4. what people often seem to devalue is discoverability. lots of info is out there if you know where to find it. how do you find the things you dont know exist. like meetings. having them all in one place like that would rock.



	[10:59]
	5. I'm seriously open to having a community communication strategy created and implemented. Just wanted you all to know that. I've asked the team at a minimum to create a blog section on d.o/community so there is one place for community news from groups like CWG.



	[10:59]
	6. My gut feeling is that we need to surface the current state of governance somewhere in the most clear way possible - then use that as a base to evolve governance to make it clear how a group is “official”.


	rachel_norfolk
	[10:59 AM]
	Again, I think we need to look at what Megan did with the DrupalCon EU. Setting a short, fixed-scope project to go a short distance has (eventually) gone down REALLY well with the community. It's a model people are aware of now and should be re-used.


	nerdstein [10:59 AM]
	7. One of my learnings in Vienna is that sometimes, people need the DA or Dries to just name a group so the world knows a group is official and so that group feel empowered. So if this group needs that done, let me know. I don't want to overstep or assume or get in the way...just offering help where I can.


	[10:59]
	8. I feel that if more people are present here, more perspectives from the community can be heard. Post to general before meeting starts.



	[10:59]
	9. So, do we need to define Community as wider than DA membership? Does it include businesses etc? Does it include clients? Does it include DA staff? Does it include that Dries guy?


	[11:00]
	10. Maybe we need to invite people to the meeting? Maybe theWeeklyDrop should have a little annoucement about each governance meeting? there's also /r/reddit. Are we reaching out to all our different channels?


	[11:00]
	Thanks for all who joined today; I'll be taking the transcript now, as previously noted.
No results found