Breakout group structure

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.