The PC discussed the challenge highlighted by the LDP App exercise related to acceptance criteria for modules. There continues to be discussion in the community about the best way forward. There's been a suggestion that a cross council task force be assembled. We wanted to raise this in community council to see if there were any members who wanted to be on a task force.

Ian Walls report from the meeting:

• TC talked about procedure questions in the last meetings
• Discussion is often very intense and engaged - but not very productive
• Clarify "what is the TC" is more in the focus than "make things happen"

----------------

• Simeon: separate 2 things:
  • Move things forward seems to be an issue - inablitity to make a decsion
  • Talk about specific agenda items. like LDP in the past
• Harry
  • TC had not the time after the election to sort their processes out → was very much forced into action
• Ian W.
  • TC is missing diversity (gender, race, knowledge) in comparison with other councils
• Mike
  • TC chair for some time: people in TC tend to have very different opinions
  • Challenge to steer such a committee
• Ian I.
  • Need for a strong chair is very obvious
  • Enable all people to share their views - let everyone talk 
• Harry
  • Voting process was difficult  (LDP) - members tend to find a better solution? Simple majority?
  • Has the result of the vote the necessary outcome and is followe up for a result?
• Ian I
  • From Mark J.: Voting for LDP was discussed with  different focus'  →  no agreement about the wished outcome
  • From chat: I think confrontation was the right word there in this case - disagreement is expected and healthy
    
• Ian W:
  • More explanation about what happend: a short review of the steps that has happend
  • Deadline was unclear in regard to integrate the LDP app into the Kiwi release
  • Proposal was not discussed in the meeting → asynchronous voting was tested for the first time 
  • Vote was very close
• Mike 
  • Rules of engagement for councils
  • Voting processes
  • Private meetings?
• Kirstin
  • Differentiate "process building" from "finding concrete solutions for certain questions" (especially under time pressure)
  • Private preparation meetings can help to avoid conflicts
• Simeon
  • Private meetings may be helpful?   
• Harry
  • TC has grown, is harder to come to consensus
  • Need some time to organzie
• Mike
  • just from 9 to 11   (Harry: but more to attend)
• Ian I
  • To much on the agenda to discuss with results in an hour
• Ian W.
  • Private, direct conversation can help to find and prepare consensus and come back to the group
  • But: no desicision making in private!
• No decisions in private is very much appreciated in general - but agreement about: private prepational work is helpful!
• Harry:
  • a tight vote is problematic - in that case revisiting may be good
  • Come back a few weeks later can help for more clarification  - Paula agrees (in chat)
• Ian W.
  • Lazy consensus: clear the objections not make everyone happy 
• Simeon:
  • Lazy consensus = nobody actively objects per Apache
• Kirstin
  • Make sure, everyone is heard in lazy consensus: people who don't agree may simply fall silent, but don't agree at all
  • Don't make procedure decisions under time pressure
  • Respect the ongoing work of development and the work of the councils: keep exisiting processes as long in place until new ones are agreed.
• Dracine
  • How to facilitate meetings in a more structured way?  
  • PC needs to make decisions as well under heavy pressure →  the time it took was taken!
• Harry
  • ?

Result:

• Mentoring sessions as an idea
• Task force from CC/PC/ TC to  volunteer in building processes: Ian, Kirstin for CC
  • Action item: start the group
    • Mike will reach out to the other councils
• Tom
  • I believe we’d benefit from a general “FOLIO Training” program. A module on community operations and decision-making could be a very positive way to model and convey the project’s DNA and good practices in that sphere.

Several people talked about the potential of having liaisons between all councils. Currently there are liaisons between CC and PC and TC and PC but not between CC and TC. Would anyone like to volunteer?

• Mike G. volunteers for TC, Ian Ibbotson is offering support as well

The Capacity Planning team is drafting a charter for it (likely will include changing the name from Capacity Planning to Release Planning Group)... but in that conversation a list of meetings that are happening regularly was created. Let's review and see if we think others might be valuable. 

• Team serves under the PC 
• Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vvDiqP4wZOQN6L7ULgbJ9y_-JEhYeXIGjmmTFx1Yd_Q/edit#gid=1742005684
  • List of tasks of that groups: roles and responsibilities
  • Overview of official community meetings
    • Question: Which meeting is the most useful for CC members?   (Boaz)
    • Tactical meetings: 
      • Weekly FOLIO Updates -  fokus: next release, prevent show stoppers
    • Non-tactical meetings
  • All meetings are open to the community members
  • Make this list public as a wiki page

Any updates from any previous actions/subgroups.

• Treasurer: Finances are about the same as the last time I updated the group
• Secretary: Update about missing MoU's next time

Parking lot:

Guidelines about channels (private, etc.)