- 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!
- A new task description for the MAB and its members
- There was already an application form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6cmF4hMET-iCA1G83Uy9rLkG7u3mLBXx5EwZmfUcnDsvenA/viewform (Who applied?)
- Who’s in for a 2nd term?
- Define new responsibilities/roles in the MAB
- Previous in-person meeting after the last Amsterdam meet-up:
- Use the Governance category in community.modx.com for published 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.
- 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)
- 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:
- Next on May 2 at 9:30AM Central (UTC-5) (see the link to compare timezones)
- Link for the next Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/j/101652664
- Find your local number (dial-in voice-only): https://zoom.us/u/aBFnDNueo
- Agenda: briefly discuss chair board (3 people and who they might be), and then dive in on 3.0 review/roadmap