O> 20180221 RChain Active Members Meeting

[dcpnlau]

ZOOM LINK FOR RAM MEETING 21 FEB: https://zoom.us/j/197490909
2018-February-21, 20:00 UTC (after Greg's Debrief)
Sydney +11, Beijing +8, Lagos +1, Amsterdam +1,
New York -5, Seattle -8

• Prepare report for Greg's Debrief (2018-02-21)

• Any key discussion points anyone wants to address should be added to the agenda and we can allocate time accordingly.
  As mentioned last week, in order to keep the agenda relevant to most of the members, I'd like to introduce a voting mechanism. Agenda points are outlined below (will be updated throughout the week). Please mention which items you'd like to prioritise. Agenda points with most votes will be discussed in order of interest.

• Prepare RAM meeting agenda. This week I'd like to use most of our meeting to have a conversation/discussion about (the issues created off the back of) the Governance Forum. Outlined below and will be updated throughout the week - Agenda will have latest updates:

• Petition system that serve as a threshold for (1) getting an item on the agenda of Greg's community debrief, and (2) getting a message pushed out to all members. (issue #380 @dckc)

• Create a clear picture of the coop and it's governance process(es) (issue [G> Create a clear picture of the coop and its governance process(es) #379](Create a clear picture of the coop and it's governance process(es)) @pmoorman)

• Trust metric to recognize authority in bounty program (issue #375 @dckc)

• Create Brand Platform Document (issue #371 @pmoorman)

• Define "Purpose & Principles" for the RChain coop (issue #370 @pmoorman)

Other items (can be discussed next week if time doesn't allow):

• Filling out tax Form W8 BEN and W9 (issue #360 @Tonyprisca13 / @lapin7)

• Scaling the (face-to-face) verification process (@makys and/or @ian / @n10n)

• Organize translations in folder (issue #351 @michaelizer)

As always, happy for additional agenda items to be added by any of the members. Please add to agenda or mention in comments below.

Budget: $2000

Time: 1 week

[dckc]

I recommend against delegating agenda building to a popular vote. In my experience, it's important for the chair to seek out agenda items and put them in priority order.

For tactics, see MidwestWeeklyAgenda in the W3C wiki.

[dckc]

@TrenchFloat do you expect you can make it this week?

gak! I meant to assign you, not me, but this machine is so old that github doesn't support this browser.

[TrenchFloat]

@dckc Yes I can be there. I will be taking notes and am happy to use them for the agenda doc afterwards.

[AyAyRon-P]

What time is the zoom meeting? I see the date but no time. I have been working on #371 with @pmoorman for the past two weeks and am free the date to help in the process and overall discussion.

[Ojimadu]

@AyAyRon-P
20:00 UTC (after Greg's Debrief)
Sydney +11, Beijing +8, Greece +2, Lagos +1, Amsterdam +1,
New York -5, Seattle -8

[ghost]

@Ojimadu I added Greece yo your comment :)

[pmoorman]

Very practical question: If my name is in the description for 3 items (#370, #371 and #379) does that mean I'm expected to be in the call, or otherwise provide anything?

I'm happy to provide with whatever could help move the discussion forward on all 3 issues, but I can't really join for the call itself.

[dckc]

I'm not available at the scheduled time either. Sometimes @TrenchFloat can represent me, but I'm not confident in the case of the agenda items above currently.

To my mind, the most important issue is translation rules (#302). That is the one blocking the most work and putting the most stress on the fairness of rewards.

Maybe I could run a meeting Thursday evening Chicago time. More than one time could help with international participation.

[makys]

Though on Agenda::There are work groups springing up (e.g. #385), how do working groups interact with RAM.

[dcpnlau]

@pmoorman I added your name because you raised the issue. It would be great to have people who started the issue be there to represent/give some background. However, if you can't make it, we can pick it up and see if there's interest to discuss the topic. Feel free to add anything to the agenda you think would be useful for the conversation.

@dckc Great! I'll add "translation" to the agenda. For this one as well - if you're not there we will proceed with the discussion without you. If there's anything else you need from/questions you have for the members, feel free to add that to the agenda or have @TrenchFloat represent you for that.

[dcpnlau]

@dckc Feel free to elaborate on your thoughts of why you're not confident in the agenda. Would be happy to take into account feedback.

[pmoorman]

@dcpnlau oke, clear. I won't make it, but I'll try at least to have tangible results ready for everyone to discuss.

In my case that means:

RE: #379
I've published the Purpose & Principles document.
Discussion should be around:

• Scope (RAM vs. Coop. Probably RAM, like @dckc more or less suggested)
• Whether more principles should be added (others have made suggestions in the document!)
• How to get everyone to see, remember & understand the purpose & principles (= execution)

RE: #371
@AyAyRon-P could stand in for me, if he can make it to the call. I'll make sure I publish a draft of the branding platform document tomorrow morning, so everyone can review it.
Discussion should be around:

• Why / how / what analysis
• (Suggested) Mission Statement
• Process that's needed to get this stuff "approved" from all the people that need to approve it
• Maybe @patrick727 can fill people in on how branding stuff like this can be used towards better, faster and more efficient communications for all marketers in the coop?

RE: #379:
I have posted my first suggestion in the issue itself, and they'll also be in the branding platform (#371, above). We should discuss about:

• New members could pitch in about what they're confused about
• How to best present / visualise the information
• How to include something about governance processes of how the coop works. Right now it's only describing 'static' things such ("what is what?"), but ideally I'd also show people "how things work around here"

Is that something you can work with, @dcpnlau?

[dckc]

oops... I've got music practice Thursday evening.

[dckc]

@dcpnlau what I'm not confident about is whether @TrenchFloat can represent my position on some of these issues. He and I don't have much time to prepare together this week.

Regarding translation, the relevant issue is #302. In particular, you suggested we "create a list of native speakers by language" and I responded by endorsing the idea and asking if you would please do that, but I don't see a response. If you would rather not do it, please use this week's meeting to recruit someone to do it.

[dckc]

By the way: we could use a weekly-agenda label to nominate issues for the agenda. And you can take the label off once the meeting has dealt with the issue and decided who has the ball. The meeting record ends up mostly in issue comments. That has its +s and -s, but it worked in my dev team of 5 to 10 people for a few years.

It's likely that too many issues would eventually get nominated, but we could deal with that problem when it arises... but github would give us some tools: sort by most commented, most recently updated, etc.

[pmoorman]

to me, leaving a trail of all relevant comments / discussions in the actual issue would be a great idea. Much better than having in scattered between issue, Discord channels and video call recordings

[dcpnlau]

Thanks everyone for the great contributions. I just had a last minute request from work to help out with a project so I’m on a plane during our meeting. I’ve asked @lapin7 to chair the meeting for me. Apologies for the last minute change. Look forward to catching up again next week. Sent on the go

…

On 21 Feb 2018, at 12:17, pmoorman ***@***.***> wrote: to me, leaving a trail of all relevant comments / discussions in the actual issue would be a great idea. Much better than having in scattered between issue, Discord channels and video call recordings — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[TrenchFloat]

Notes for the meeting are up in the doc. Looks like we didn't get to the agenda points on issues #375 and #371. Issue #380 was touched on briefly.

[dckc]

I'm getting conflicting info about whether the handling of source materials in the governance scope doc (#133) was discussed in this meeting.

@jimscarver if it was discussed, would you please summarize the discussion in the body of the record?

@TrenchFloat I got the impression from you that it was not discussed; is that the case?

[dckc]

for end-of-the month budgeting purposes: I did a bunch of issue clean-up in preparation for this meeting.

[lapin7]

@dckc Maybe raise the budget for this issue and claim a reward for your clean-up work in Feb.

[dckc]

What's left to do on this issue? Why is it still open?