MAB relaunch meeting notes Apr 25, 2019

Governance
1

Attendees

  • Christian Seel
  • Gauke Pieter Sietzema
  • Ivan Klimchuk
  • Mat Jones
  • Jason Coward
  • Mark Hamstra
  • Philip Harvey
  • Ryan Thrash
  • Gerben van de Kraats

Absent with notice:

  • Thomas Jakobi
  • Joshua Luckers

Absent without notice:

  • None, yay!

Agenda

Notes

Should we have another MAB?

  • As discussed at the previous Amsterdam meetup, there’s agreement that we should have some project management, but it’s not clear if that should be called a MAB or something else
  • Another idea from Ryan: regional “hubs” with representation from different regions/communities
  • Burn the current MAB charter with fire

General consensus: yes, but much less administrative overhead with shared responsibilities and minimum commitment of time.

Goals for the MAB going forward

Roadmap and communication about it (primary purpose of the MAB v2.0)

  • How in-depth? Technical?
  • Original recommendations can be a big part of this
  • Need Community-to-MAB communications more clearly and consistently … they are the silent majority and there’s no clear
  • To define a roadmap the needs from the community need to understand (surveys etc)
  • Milestones (3.0.0-alpha)
  • Big hurdle: 10-year+ old technology modernization with only minimal breakage was the intention, but … lots of shortcuts taken in the current plan that ultimately break a lot of backward compatibilities anyway … the technical debt burden.
  • Need to focus on “smaller” feature releases instead of massive efforts
  • Github is a huge list of wants/wishes with no prioritization. When it bugs someone enough to solve them, they do so, but there’s no guidelines/guidance in place to ensure they’ll be adopted.
    • PR rejections: need clearer guidelines on the general philosophy (core vs Extras, e.g.) … that said it doesn’t happen that frequently … provide more guidance on how to do it inline with the philosophy
  • Start small, with people that can devote time to Roadmap development. Should not be 1 or 2 people responsible for all the docs, and heavy lifting.
  • Coordinate release of 3.0
  • New Manager … how as it’s going to be hard (post 3)? Needs a working group.

Structure

  • Charter: trash and start over … too much overhead for volunteers?
  • ~10-12 members? Do we limit membership count?
  • Defining responsibilities with rotating secretary role
  • Minimum contributions in hours per week?
  • 3-person chair group for addressing disputes/membership?
  • Working groups
    • In previous MAB, the person making a recommendation would also be responsible for the working group to make it happen. If that person is busy, it doesn’t get done.
    • Ideally, people outside the MAB take/are given responsibility for getting it done
  • Gerben—collect / solicit money for rewards for heavy contributors, eg, money or merchandise, OpenCollective may be a solution (Christian)

Future steps/actions/meetings

  • Next Meeting Agenda: Roadmap including current problems and extension
  • 3 hours block for next meeting—please plan to attend the entire time and focus
  • Anyone who wishes to attend future meetings can (unless it becomes a problem)
  • Funding efforts (especially Security)

Thursday standing meeting:

Recording

3 Likes