OK, I GitHubbed a prototype of the idea!

https://github.com/ethanheppner/join-a-breakout/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc

If we were to go forward with something like this, we'd definitely want to train breakout group leaders to update, which would be pretty simple:

1. Open an issue for a project
2. Write a title and description
3. Tag issue with the type of skillsets needed
4. Update as necessary and opt in to being announced each week by reopening your issue.

Issues would be closed at the end of the hack night each week, which just requires checking all of the boxes and closing. I'd be happy volunteering to this, but anyone with access to the repo could as well.

For ongoing groups, what if we only had one full group description per week? Our group names are pretty descriptive and the full descriptions are displayed up on the screen. If your group is not the one featured that week for a full description, just say, "I'm so and so from X group. This week we're looking for people to help with content planning and database architecture. I'll be in the mess hall." 15, 30 seconds tops.

Are we voting on everything Ethan proposed above or just the brief proposal described above and to the right? Because i do not agree with the idea of putting this in github, but i do agree with following a structure. Github seems like an unnecessary, overly-technical step.

Well, and why do we need a tool at all? Why can't it just be a verbal announcement. "People generally need info X, Y, and Z. We need you to keep the time limit to N seconds." Content in yet another place seems like overkill, unless Im missing something. And I'd like to avoid barriers to nontechnical people starting problem-oriented groups.

A 'tool' is perhaps stating it too strongly. I'm thinking documentation about the goals of the project, a link to documents, a list of people working on it and resources still needed. All of of the above would fit in a live google doc very nicely.

Hmm. That seems to go beyond announcing the group.

a,body {font-family:'Calibri',Arial,sans-serif;}img {border:none !important;-ms-interpolation-mode:bicubic;}td {mso-line-height-rule:exactly !important;}.mso-card-inner table {border-collapse:collapse !important;mso-table-lspace:0pt;mso-table-rspace:0pt;vertical-align:top;}.outlook-com-only {display:none !important;font-size:0 !important;}#mso-one-whole {width:100% !important;}.border-outer,.border-middle,.border-inner {border:none !important;}.border-middle,.border-inner {width:100% !important;}.mso-border-outer,.mso-border-middle,.mso-border-inner {padding:1px;}.mso-border-outer {background-color:rgb(245,255,255);}.mso-border-middle {background-color:rgb(223,246,255);}.mso-border-inner {background-color:rgb(153,176,225);}

sorry, maybe I'm conflating two things here. I am in favor of putting more structure into the announcements (and limiting the time they take. I am also in favor of documenting the groups in a format that allows those interested to see it electronically. My vote was for the former, my dialogue was towards the latter.

Steve Ediger

773-920-7350 (google voice)

505-426-7088 (mobile)

Hi all - looks like there are a few threads going on here:

1. changing the structure of the announcements, which there is currently a proposal to vote on
2. a more meta-discussion on the breakout group structure. Ethan has been prototyping using GitHub to organize this, but there is currently no decision to make on it yet.

Let's plan on discussing both tomorrow!

Sorry I'll miss it for other commitments. You have my comments in Loomio (which it would be great to blend into the physical discussion). My commitment is actually finished by the time LC meets but not soon enough to get there. I could join by skype/google hangouts, if possible.

Can this be extended?
I don't think 24 hours is enough time to decide, especially since this is the first in hearing of it.

This really needs to be updated, but this is the thing I did to keep me from spending an hour explaining the project to new people each week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WF9J1lmaSowYVTTKnXUmlrfIs6riPXhsbR-9TIqAbLY/edit#

That's a great write-up about the Nursing Home project, Joel. If you put a one-screen summary at the top, it would quickly give the reader (who's the reader? in this case we're talking about potential project members) an idea of what the project was about, areas of needed expertise, etc., and they could dive deeper with the rest of the text if they wanted to.

I'm thinking about a table with Project Name, Project Leader (and contact info), one sentence description, platform(s), current resource needs, project timeframe.

@stevenvance I've extended it until 10p tonight. If we decide to use Loomio as a platform, my goal will be to have everyone weigh in on the proposals at the leadership council meeting.

@joelinwood that document is great. we should definitely direct breakout leaders to do the same!

Joel, your document is great! I definitely agree it would be beneficial to ask all breakout leaders to create a similar document. They could be linked to the breakout groups page, so leaders can give a 30-second description at Hack Night and direct people to the links for more details.

I'm still not opposed to some way for breakout group leaders to notify Derek (or the leadership council?) if they will be at Hack Night that week, for the sake of the agenda. I think that it will save time, and like Eric mentioned, won't look iffy when Derek Buellers through 3 breakout groups in a row. I think the buy-in is more important than the method at this point. It could be as simple as tweeting Derek or creating a "breakout group" slack channel so leaders can post if they plan on attending. The hard part will be getting people to actually do this.

I agree on all points. There could be some fringe benefits to having a breakout leader channel beyond checkins. Ex, a dialouge similar to leadership council but focused around the specific issues of leading/directing groups, skillshare, etc.

I agree that it doesn't look great when we introduce a breakout group and it turns out they are not meeting tonight (I'm not sure how much time that actually takes up compared to everything else, though), but I don't think it's all bad. The breakout group is usually introduced with something like "Is anyone from the ____ group here tonight?", which encourages people who might not be an official leader of the group to stand up and announce that they are still meeting tonight.

I think some sort of registration system could work -- but if the leader(s) will not be present, then they should be sure to check with the rest of the group and see if they will be meeting regardless.

Agreed with @emilyzvolanek that the buy-in will be difficult and is definitely crucial, I don't think the system would work well if every group does not respond.

If anyone needs help creating an overview document, I'm happy to help. Sometimes having a third party ask questions and take notes can congeal a gelatinous plan.