Integrating reading assignment 2: Shaping part1 - Principles of Shaping & Setting Boundaries

Thoughts from US Sync:

• the examples they give are very base-level, not very intricate or business-related

• setting boundaries:

  • what problem is this solving?

• Kayla - Sometimes the 2.0 label is appropriate, not sure why we have 6 week cycles

  • L:

    • it can be good to go down the rabbit hole to really consider what the full play-out could look like

• not sure if this is the right process for us (K), we are not hierarchal. the example in the book is a bit condesding like 'don't give a no, give a soft no' but we are prioritizing first party hosts so we are co-workers so...

  • nathan, our fellow team-members did waste three weeks but that's our current process and not a good use of time. people recognize that it should not have been prioritized

  • lauren, well the book and our current process are not the same

  • how did we get that far down the line though so that this was prioritized for a dev cycle? new OCF team members are asking how decisions are being made and now we are implementing new decision making processes in lomio

- previously, we should have a product built out by users - was the responsility of design to push those forward - how are decisions made? - the hieararchy question sits alongside the product approach   - theres been a difference between how we dream things work and then how things actually work - where does the power sit?   - with certain people - we all have little things that interest us as individuals   - before the product (as a function), people will work on what they want to work on - e.g. at Google, to get promoted, do something new. not thru maintaining something. thats why gmail gets redesigned

• get priority from users

  • what is the impact score of this?

• the scale is too big, have to focus in on 1 corner

• can't expect the users to jump in and read thru all the comments on a github/loomio

  • and its

• K - recurring themes keep coming up. agree it is too big for one person to hold all the knowledge and decision making so how do we shape - the oc-support call was a good example of us iterating on an idea together for the toggle idea

N:

• not talking about shape up

  • we're reading about someone else's job and critizing how they've done it

K:

• but reading the book is also frustrating

https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

• non-hieracrhciacal, open process -> you've done your job to giving eveyrone a voice

  • not true, doesnt work

    • egalitariansim, structures, power that ppl have in outside world

    • e.g. founder will get more power than ops

  • we're a soft power org

K:

• the process of putting together ideas for the virtual cards was frustrating - our processes need an overhaul. It's not just ops but I imagine others are frustrated too - what are we building, we are not centralized about our vision

N:

• tension between structure & fluidity

  • can have structure in process

  • fixed time, variable scope

• its good because it forces ppl to get realistic about whats possible within a specific period of time,

• forces you to start

  • on its own, doesnt give a vision

• priorites??

  • this is where teamwork + centralized vision helps

K

• some things will take longer then 6 weeks though. not every problem can be solved in that time frame.

• i'd want to work with a closer - like put opposite pieces together.

• like the two parts, shapers and builders

L:

• waterfall /agile

  • you dont even get to the development phase

  • our 6 weeks in the dev phase

    • everyone in the dev phase, including design

• cannot solve all problems within a 6week window

  • we're missing the pre-6week, waterfall part

• the follow-up on the next pieces

• idea of taking a big piece and breaking it into 6 week chunks is part of that initial shaping process

• in order to compensate for hiearchicy, the people who are not in the positions of power need mechanisms for contributing

• "Need boundaries to define what’s out of scope"

K: we need boundries set so we know what is in scope or what would be out of scope

• the dynamics of decision-making in a startup are not suitable to a scalin org

  • the power dyanmics nneed to be renegotiated

• What boundaries do we need?

  • who decides what gets prioritized and how?

  • how do people get to provide input?

    • making OC is a good start for this but not convinced that what we write will be heard or used?

    • lauren is just making looms to share the current frustrating process - will point out areas for improvement and let others come up with the ideas for how to implement.

Take the pieces that can fit unto 6 weeks - knowing our boundaries (1st party hosts, limit og staffjng), what are ways we can more efficiently share knowledge between each other. - lets take on shaping conversatiins ourselves - shared services agreeemnts between oc and 1st party hosts -whats makes a 1st party host a 1st party host? -exec board sees a need jn a certain region, that current hosts cannot. Or someone internally wants to do it. Oc funds that persons salary (thru grants, pia gets money from outside), gives a runway x amount of time to become sustainable

ATTENDEES Kayla E, Nathan Hewitt, Lauren Gardner