Re: Suggestions for format of AGM next year
Hi karen, 2012/8/3 Karen Sandler ka...@gnome.org: Perhaps this should have been appended to the lightning talk session for the outreach participants, which actually ended 15 minutes early this time. The lightning session ending early wasn't planned, we had budgeted 3 minutes per student + 1 minute to switch from one student to the next, which would have made the session last until 17:01. It turned out that student switching/some talks were shorter than expected, which made us finish early. But we couldn't know in advance that we could have given the prizes during this session. Christophe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestions for format of AGM next year
Hi, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: ... I thought a bit about the AGM we had a few days ago, and I'd like to suggest we find a different format for next year. Here's a list of issues with the current format, from what I saw this year: - it was a bit too long. A small break might have helped. - the discussion about changing the release team had to be cut, because it would have used too much time needed for the other reports. However, I think this is a discussion a lot of people cared about and that could have been used more time. Especially since we had everyone in a room, which helps communication. Hopefully, the GNOME OS BoF was useful for this (I missed it, so don't know). - I didn't feel there was a lot said about the Foundation itself. Sure, there were a few slides at the end, but that was not that much detailed, and because of the short remaining time, it went really fast. - obviously, we should have had time for questions. Questions from the members, but also from the board to members (to bootstrap discussion on some topics). - it might be a good idea to have some kind of document sent before the AGM to foundation-list or the members, so we have more details about what's going to be discussed. This could be just the slides, or something different. Having some time to ponder about the content is useful, and that could lead to more questions or some improved discussion. ... Another approach would be to split the team reports and the AGM in two different slots. Easy to do and not that much impact. Probably something we could try next year? ... I agree that the AGM was a bit constrained this year, and these all seem like good suggestions. Perhaps it would be good to split the GUADEC closing out into a separate session too (so we have 1. team reports 2. AGM and 3. GUADEC closing)? An open call for questions or discussion topics can often be inhibiting; I'm sure that we would have a livelier debate if we had a set of potential discussion topics prepared in advance. The Board could organise this depending on current hot topics. We could also pull recent discussion subjects from the Foundation list. Allan -- IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestions for format of AGM next year
On Fri, August 3, 2012 5:29 am, Allan Day wrote: Hi, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: ... I thought a bit about the AGM we had a few days ago, and I'd like to suggest we find a different format for next year. Thanks for putting this down, Vincent! Here's a list of issues with the current format, from what I saw this year: - it was a bit too long. A small break might have helped. - the discussion about changing the release team had to be cut, because it would have used too much time needed for the other reports. However, I think this is a discussion a lot of people cared about and that could have been used more time. Especially since we had everyone in a room, which helps communication. Hopefully, the GNOME OS BoF was useful for this (I missed it, so don't know). I agree - The release team decided to do this last minute, so I was aware they wanted a few minutes for QA but didn't realize they were opening up the floor to a whole discussion. Once it was started, I also felt it was an important discussion to have and didn't want to cut it off. Because this took at least 20 minutes more than we'd budgeted for, timing got very tight. Additionally, our outreach section took a lot longer than expected with handing out the certificates, which was also not budgeted for time-wise. Perhaps this should have been appended to the lightning talk session for the outreach participants, which actually ended 15 minutes early this time. - I didn't feel there was a lot said about the Foundation itself. Sure, there were a few slides at the end, but that was not that much detailed, and because of the short remaining time, it went really fast. Sorry about that, I agree! - obviously, we should have had time for questions. Questions from the members, but also from the board to members (to bootstrap discussion on some topics). Last year, with the identical agenda we had tons of time for the QA, and some great conversation that came out of that so I wasn't as worried about timing this time. In addition to the Outreach and Release team presentations taking longer, this time we also had the last minute proposal for the planet gnome discussion. The AGM should include agenda items formally proposed by members, so we also had that unexpected addition as well. - it might be a good idea to have some kind of document sent before the AGM to foundation-list or the members, so we have more details about what's going to be discussed. This could be just the slides, or something different. Having some time to ponder about the content is useful, and that could lead to more questions or some improved discussion. Good point. Last year and this year, at least, the agenda consisted of the reports, a few announcements and QA. While there were no identified discussion areas in advance, next year we can definitely do that, circulating topic ideas here a week or two in advance. Another approach would be to split the team reports and the AGM in two different slots. Easy to do and not that much impact. Probably something we could try next year? We may want to do something like this. What about extending the AGM to 3 hours, which we may not need all of, and scheduling the reports first but taking a break after them? I think it's good to have the reports and discussion back to back as I think the reports set the context of where things are and what has happened over the last year. I agree that the AGM was a bit constrained this year, and these all seem like good suggestions. Perhaps it would be good to split the GUADEC closing out into a separate session too (so we have 1. team reports 2. AGM and 3. GUADEC closing)? This time we did have a separate GUADEC closing on Sunday (the AGM was Saturday). I started with a GUADEC feedback session - was that useful? An open call for questions or discussion topics can often be inhibiting; I'm sure that we would have a livelier debate if we had a set of potential discussion topics prepared in advance. The Board could organise this depending on current hot topics. We could also pull recent discussion subjects from the Foundation list. Allan, I think you may be right. We can perhaps circulate an Expected Discussion Topics list, which allows people to think about what else they'd like to discuss. I'm glad we're thinking about the format of the meeting, and hope we can improve for next year! karen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Suggestions for format of AGM next year
Hi all, I thought a bit about the AGM we had a few days ago, and I'd like to suggest we find a different format for next year. Here's a list of issues with the current format, from what I saw this year: - it was a bit too long. A small break might have helped. - the discussion about changing the release team had to be cut, because it would have used too much time needed for the other reports. However, I think this is a discussion a lot of people cared about and that could have been used more time. Especially since we had everyone in a room, which helps communication. Hopefully, the GNOME OS BoF was useful for this (I missed it, so don't know). - I didn't feel there was a lot said about the Foundation itself. Sure, there were a few slides at the end, but that was not that much detailed, and because of the short remaining time, it went really fast. - obviously, we should have had time for questions. Questions from the members, but also from the board to members (to bootstrap discussion on some topics). - it might be a good idea to have some kind of document sent before the AGM to foundation-list or the members, so we have more details about what's going to be discussed. This could be just the slides, or something different. Having some time to ponder about the content is useful, and that could lead to more questions or some improved discussion. Note that I'm not blaming the board or anyone. I could as well blame myself as a past board member or as someone who worked on the schedule for this GUADEC :-) I know the KDE eV is using a full day for their AGM at Akademy. This leaves a lot of time for discussion. That being said, I'm not sure that'd work well for us: would we be happy to dedicate a full day to this? I'm not so sure, as the GUADEC program is already full. Another approach would be to split the team reports and the AGM in two different slots. Easy to do and not that much impact. Probably something we could try next year? Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
