DjangoCon Europe Support: Provide description of responsibilities #21
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! This is really good, clear writing and reflects the current status very well 👏
It also doesn't contradict anything from the previous document, so AFAICT this looks like a simple way forward 🚂
Edit: I changed my mind on whether it's a substantive change. This is a substantive vote. The "TBD" under "Responsibilities" means TBD - by the WG and the board.
To make changes to a WG, open a pull request modifying the charter. If the change is substantive, the the change will go to a Board vote.
https://github.com/django/dsf-working-groups?tab=readme-ov-file#changes-to-working-groups
|
|
||
| The team will also set up a collection of data and information, in something like a Google Drive folder. A static informational website might follow at a later date. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Reporting | ||
|
|
||
| TBD | ||
| As DjangoCon Europe has a native yearly cycle, the working group will formally report to the board once per year. However, since the working group is not making any decisions and does most of its work by advising the board, the board is expected to be updated on important DjangoCon Europe matters in real-time througout the year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me as a board member yearly isn’t frequent enough. Though happy to be told otherwise depending on what the contents of the report would be, compared to the more real-time update?
My expectation would be monthly or quarterly. I’d rather receive short but frequent reports, as otherwise I could be out of the loop on what the group is up to for a while. A yearly cycle sounds great to me to make a public report of the group’s activities, but for the board I’d like to know about progress on:
- Our selection process. Both the methodology, and practically where we’re at with different proposals / EoIs.
- How the group works with this year’s organizers.
- Our organizational knowledge improvements.
We also use reporting as a way to keep track of group health (see Shutting down WGs).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the months the WG has existed now, there was not a single piece of "action" within the WG (like when vetting the 2025 proposals or giving feedback on the form) where no board member (you, Cagil, Chaim) was deeply involved. I assume that is going to stay that way since
- the board formally receives the proposals
- the board makes the decisions in the selection process
So at least for item 1 of your list, if I would now send a report for this quarter that says "Becky worked with Thibauld to vet the proposals for 2025", that did not appear incredible useful to me.
But if you prefer, we can just change it to a monthly cycle, especially for the "How the group works with this year’s organizers" part it makes sense. Although I assume that, since the 2025 team has prior experience, they will not need the support from us very much, but I'm okay with sending a sometimes-almost-empty email once a month.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let’s see what others think. From my perspective, if you think there’s not much to report on, a report of "there isn’t much to report on" is completely fine. We can always ask for more info.
there was not a single piece of "action" within the WG […] where no board member was deeply involved
Board members don’t always report on their activities with the rest of the board so I don’t think that’s relevant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just noting without further feedback, I’m happy to move forward with the existing wording :)
Co-authored-by: Thibaud Colas <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thibaud Colas <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Balder Bach <[email protected]>
active/dceu.md
Outdated
| Delegated responsibilities TBD. | ||
| - Provide a point of contact for people interested in organizing the conference to ask questions | ||
| - Provide advice to selected DjangoCon Europe organizers and assist them in staying on track by proactively keeping in touch with them during the process of organizing | ||
| - Debrief with organizers after the event to collect resources and lessons learned that make continuity between conferences easier and provide these to future and current organizers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a line of its own for "collect resources", I think this is a very important responsibility of the WG to built and maintain resources - written (as docs and guides) and network (as connections to communities and sponsors, etc.).
|
|
||
| The team will also set up a collection of data and information, in something like a Google Drive folder. A static informational website might follow at a later date. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Reporting | ||
|
|
||
| TBD | ||
| As DjangoCon Europe has a native yearly cycle, the working group will formally report to the board once per year. However, since the working group is not making any decisions and does most of its work by advising the board, the board is expected to be updated on important DjangoCon Europe matters in real-time througout the year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just noting without further feedback, I’m happy to move forward with the existing wording :)
|
I fixed the merge conflict and addressed @cgl's comment, so feel free to merge :) |
No description provided.