[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] Planning for Sugar Camp Paris

[David Farning]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Caroline Meeks <solutiongrove at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>>
>>
>> I was extremely disappointed in our last two SugarCamps.  Rather then
>> coming together as a community with shared goals, I got the feeling
>> that we were just a bunch of people gathered in a room; each trying to
>> push their own agenda.  The turning point for me was when a scheduled
>> speaker said, 'God Damn It.  This is my hour and now YOU have to
>> listen to ME.'
>>
>
> I think we are in violent agreement here.  Please go back and reread your
> response to my suggestion that we use protocols and I'll walk you through my
> thinking.

Actually, I believe we are in complete agreement.  We just differ in
implementation and enforcement:)

> First, I think its extraordinarily important that we appreciate what an
> effective organization we are.  Especially in our distance communications.
> David really covers that well in his response to my protocols post.  We are
> doing a lot of things right and getting good results. Releases, publicity
> and much positive interest and increasing attention.

The rest is of the post is going to be a long meandering digression
into community building, group dynamics and setting mutual goals.  If
you are not to such things, the following is no more than psycho
babble which has no more effect on your daily life than what Michelle
Obama wore yesterday.

1.  The protocols (like bylaw and trademark policies) themselves don't
really matter.  Every minute spent working on them is a sunk cost...
because it take time and emotion away from improving the Sugar
Platform.  What matters is that we set them and move on to other
things.

2. The effectiveness of the Sugar Labs did not just happen.  Many
people have worked to create and establish the community norms
necessary to encourage effective communication and collaboration.

> I share David's disappointment with the quality of our in person meetings.
> We are not unique in this.  I am in a class that studies School Reform this
> semester and the teacher spends huge amounts of time observing in schools.
> He says that 90% of teacher "shared planning time" and "team" meetings are
> like watching paint dry.  Its hard to get people who are used to working
> alone to effectively collaborate in face-to-face groups. It doesn't just
> happen on its own.  However, when it does happen the results and the
> coefficient on the effects on learning are quite large.

I care that in two weeks the participants who make the effort to to
attend SugarCamp Paris have the opportunity to spend useful time
together.

> So schools are working on this problem with what they call "Protocols". I'm
> not a huge fan of the name.  But I am a huge fan of accepting the culture
> and language of our users and finding what in their existing culture can
> help us help them use Sugar better.  We trying to go into schools and tell
> them to use Sugar change to  constructivism, don't do things the way you
> have been doing them.  That is not a huge recipe for long term success.  I'd
> like to try whenever possible for us to also be learning from schools.
>
> In this case both Sugar Labs and Schools have a shared problem.  We know our
> face-to-face group planning time is vital, but its expensive and we are
> dissatisfied with the results.

1. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs knows more about their area of
specialty then I do.
2. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs is more passionate about their
area of specialty than I am.
3. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs is willing to spend more time
solving problem in their area of interest than I am.

If we accept the notion that the participants are the valuable assets
in Sugar Labs, managements job is try to provide the participants with
the resource they need to work effectively and then get out of the
way.  When participants arrive at SugarCamp they will already bring
ideas of what they want learn about, talk about, and accomplish.

The FudCon approach gives _control_ of the conference back to the
participants.  The participants set the agenda, the participants
decide what sessions to attend, the participants decide what sessions
are useful and which are not.

There is no man (or mother-ship) setting the agenda and planing the
priorities. If three smart passionate people go off and work on a
problem, that is much more valuable than 30 bored and angry people
fighting for 'airtime.'  Three dedicated and motivated people are all
that it takes to form a self-sustaining team around a project or
feature.

I am going to ask you to make a leap up faith and trust me on this
one.  If it doesn't work we can try something else next time.
SugarCamps, like releases, don't need to be perfect, they just need to
keep getting better.

david