 I think most of us know you, but I could be wrong, but if you don't, the way I know Addison is from all sorts of things, from writing books, like the O'Reilly book, to video training, to helping with documentation, to being a well-known speaker at Drupal events, to many more things. So I'm very excited to have you on board, and sorry if I sold you short there, but I'll run an amazing person doing lots of different things in Drupal. So excited to have you on the board. I'm excited to be here. Awesome. Welcome. So, yes. Yeah. It goes off. All right. So it was a pretty nice day. Yeah, welcome, Addy. It's really good to have you. Thanks for having us back. I'm excited. That's right. It's not your first time at this radio, is it, Addison? Well, I wasn't on the board when I was on the DA before. It's back when we had the whole permanent member thing that voted the board and all that stuff. But back in the old school system. But yeah, I think this is, I like this board. I'm digging this. Keep talking. You can stay. All right. Oh, stop. All right. Well, let's get going. I think y'all have access to the board packet, but we're going to do things a little bit differently this time. We're not going to do the regular updates, committee updates. We've shared those in a document. We may do some Q&A around them, but we're not going to explain them in words, so to speak. And then we're going to spend a good chunk of time on the redesign of D2O. And hopefully that will also be a discussion, assuming you guys have all looked at the documents ahead of the meeting. But before we go there, we're going to do some Q&A on the operational updates by Holly. And then we're going to talk a little bit about the results of the voting as well, as well as the D8 Accelerate stuff. Holly, you can get started. Sounds good. Thanks, Trice. So any questions from the committee updates before I launch in? Okay. Yeah. So lots of stuff going on over here. And I tried to lay it out in the update as sort of like highlights and like, ah, shoulder shrug area. And then some lowlights. I'm really addicted to the shoulder shrug iconography that's available via ASCII text. But at any rate, the highlights for us, Tri-Cruple and advertising programs in general are spinning up and really working well for us. It's a revenue area that's really very promising for the association to be able to do more things like D8 Accelerate and other ways to fund Drupal, the Drupal community and the Drupal project. So those are all looking really well and those are new sources of revenue that are not con related. And that helps us with our financial stability. So those are looking great. Tri-Drupal just launched on the home page changes that were put out yesterday, feels like a lifetime ago. And so those are up and we are getting lots of good feedback on those changes, both in Josh's original announcement about, you know, recommendations for changes to this first iteration of the home page. And so we are, you know, just currently figuring out what's going to go in iteration two and iteration three, including language around Tri-Drupal on the site. So that's what we're doing there. Given attribution is also now live on Drupal.org and being used. So almost 6,000, it's probably more than 6,000 comments now because I wrote this last week, have been given attribution since the feature launched about three weeks ago. David Hernandez has just caught my own typo. You should be proud of me. So that's going well. And then the Drupal 8 Accelerate, both the campaign and the work that it is funding are really gearing up at this point. So we just had, the week before last, the Drupal CI Sprint here in the Portland office. Our folks were working on a new test bot infrastructure for the project. And they got a metric, lots, ton, boatload. Thank you, boatload. Thanks, Brian. So, you know, all the big key issues were addressed, which is great and there's lots of work still to do. But, you know, that's awesome. And we're just really excited about the work that it is, it's funding. So that's awesome. And the fundraising campaign itself is also kind of a nice, good initial kickoff. So thanks to all the board members for helping make that happen. And now we're just entering that phase where you just keep pushing to get there. So that's good. And then obviously also elections. We had elections and we're just really thrilled to add these here, but we already covered that. So more thrilling, Addy. The things to watch for us, Drupal Con Revenue for LA, we were a little bit behind Drupal Con Austin. We think in ticket sales coming out of the early birth period, it looks like we are catching that back up to some degree. So, but we'll just keep watching. We have regular rate closing on Friday this week. But we feel like whatever happens there, we'll be able to manage the budget implications for that event to offset. So just an area that we keep pushing around. And the team there is also trying to do some new things on Drupal.org to help get the Con in front of new audiences. So they're looking at being able to publish Drupal Con Los Angeles ads in front of folks who are, you know, geo-targeted basically for the LA areas that we can really work on getting folks who don't have to travel to come to the Con. Those kinds of things. And then Low Lights, partner programs. Sales are really slow across all our partner programs. You know, we have talked about on the board, you know, as the association matures, its product lines grow and they deliver direct benefit that a sort of pure fundraising sell like a supportive program is going to have less and less meaning and value. We think that's true. We also just know that our sales draft has been really distracted at the beginning of the year with a couple of new campaign ideas that we tried that came out of the way that we had hoped. And the good news is that the Supporting Partner met its March goal, so we're not falling further behind there. We feel like the sales team can redirect and start to, you know, meet goals moving forward if not make the revenue back up. So, and then the sales team in general, we had team member retire Don Page who did so much for us. I just want to publicly acknowledge that he came in and was like, really helped us build a sales program, which was fantastic and did a lot to set us up for success in some really key areas, but he just retired. I think his first trip after retiring involves a shark tank, like a real one, not the MSNBC one. And we're really sad to see him go. And we just had another position we just hired for not work out, so there's a lot of transition there. And we've got lots of stuff to do on the revenue side, so that's a risk that we are really working hard to address and mitigate as quickly as possible. And that is my update. Is there any questions? I can see the chat, so I'm going to have to rely on you, Holly, or somebody on the webinar site, I guess. Doesn't sound like there's questions. I don't see any. All right. Awesome. All right, well, let's move on to the next topic, which is the release of the voting data. I'm not sure we're going to present that, actually. There we go. OK, can you guys hear me now? Yes. Built-in output, no, audio output, built-in output. Oh, OK, sorry. Can you guys hear me now? Yeah, we can. OK, sorry about that. We're a little hardware-issue. I've got the board topic, apologies for that. As we mentioned in the highlight section, we had an election, and it went really well, which we have covered in the board meeting, which we covered, sorry, as we ratified Addison's election, which is great. One of the things that came out of that was some requests from community members, both on Twitter and in some emails to me, a couple out of the places, folks really pushing to see the election's data. So I just wanted to run through a couple things and have a discussion with this on this topic with the board. So quick overview. Again, we announced the winner on the 25th of March. We got a lot of feedback. Our discussion I remember of this in the past is that we have explicitly not shared the data to protect the standing of community members, their public perception. And folks have argued with me that democracies release vote totals. That's what they do. John Kerry got X percent of the vote, right? That's the kind of thing that we say. And that transparency is one of our key community values. So to not release the data feels awkward. And I think to push back, unlike a country, Drupal is a small community. And so we just don't want anyone to feel bad about where they ended up in the results because they kind of have to live with that in a different way than, say, John Kerry does, when he has a humiliating, crushing loss. So, you know, and I'm not really sure what the data is useful for beyond knowing, but I'm cool with the fact that, you know, just knowing it is good stuff. So just a little, this is a little bit of the back and forth that we've had with community members. And I want to be clear that we would never actually share data that could be tied to an individual, so we would never share that a specific person voted a specific way. So that is not what we do, but we could release aggregate results for voting. So this candidate got X number of votes in total, for example. This is what the raw voting data looks like when we get it out of the tool that we use to analyze it. So we get a list of candidate names, and then you can see their vote counts all lined up. And what happens as you go through is that, you know, it eliminates candidates, you know, based on their vote totals, you know, in each round. So you get basically a row for each round, and you can see who's eliminated as we go along. So this is what we get, and we could share some version of this. So in summary, it doesn't align with our value of transparency, but it might not align with the value of respecting one another. And I just wanted to get this out in front of the board and just hear where you guys are at. I don't think we would need to officially vote on anything, but if there's general agreement that we do want to release this data in some way, then, you know, we're all for doing it. But I felt like it was worth a discussion before we just did it or didn't do it. Holly, how many people were asking for this? In people or? Yeah, I mean, I would say that it is, it was, you know, less than 100, more than 10. Closer to 10. And how many of those are actual candidates? I did do a survey of the candidates and asked if they would be OK with the voting data being released. I got 10 responses and all 10 people said they would be all right with it. My question was, so that's good to know, my question was slightly different, I guess. It's like, how many of the people that requested the data to be released of the 10 between 10 and 100, how many of these are actual candidates itself? Yeah, I think two people were really very vocal about it. No, by very vocal, you mean that they, you mean that they really want these two candidates really want the data released publicly? Correct. Or were they just asking for it for themselves? No, to be released publicly. One, the Twitter conversation about it. Wonderful that we got from CAACs is to release the results only for the top three vote getters, so that we don't worry about making people feel bad at the bottom of the list. But there's some transparency about sort of where the momentum was for candidates. Hey, Holly. What if you, what if you did the approach you had, which is the redacted the list with, you know, the full transparency, but with the names redacted and then told those people which column they were that was redacted? Did you guys follow that? I didn't quite follow that. Tell, told which people. So in your, in your, in your slide, you had a picture of the columns with the names redacted, right? So we could release it with that anonymous. Yes. Right. But then you could tell those two or three individuals who felt strongly that they know, you could say, hey, your column for not publicly, but to them individually, hey, just in case you want to know where, which of these is you, that's you right there. Yeah, and then they could, they could release that or not. Right. And they, if they wanted to go on Twitter and say, see this, I'm column four. I mean, whatever, I don't think, I don't think that they really, that wasn't really their thing. Their thing was the public should see these numbers generally less so than I know what my result was. Yeah, one thing that I thought, one thing I thought was an impetus, which David is reminding me of is that some, some candidates were wanted to know where they came in on the list because they, you know, if they were 12 out of 12, they would not consider running again. But if they were two out of 12, they would consider running again. Just part of what I was like, I liked Catch's proposal. So I thought, you know, we can release all the raw numbers with redacted names, but then let the top few candidates know who they were so that they could, they could choose to release that or not. And they, anyway, and they would know if they were in the running again. So here's, here's what I would do. I mean, I think we, we can look at it in two, I think there's two parts that is one. I think we can make a policy to release the data, for example, in the future and make that part of the, you know, make that known to everybody when they submit their candidacy that their data will be, that the data will be shared publicly, at least then the candidates, they know what's going to happen with the data. I think we can, we could choose to, to propose something like this and, and make, you know, formalize that in the future. And then there's a situation of what we want to do with the results of this particular voting, I guess, which we can, we can treat separately. You know, my recommendation, if 10, I don't actually know how many candidates we had in total. 20, 24. 24, okay. I mean, we could reach out to them. We've already reached out to 10 of them, it sounds like, and 10 of them are okay with it. I mean, I guess we could reach out to all of them and just get their, their consent to release the data. I know it's a little bit of work. Yeah, I mean, the one thing I would say is that, you know, I think that makes a lot of sense in terms of, you know, setting it up for the future. We obviously want to know whether that would deter people. We, you know, it wasn't that long ago. We actually had a hard time getting a lot of people to come in and I want to make sure we don't lose people. Some of these people would be good candidates to rerun. So I liked it as much as it's a pain, talking to each of them just so we're not deterring anyone from doing it again in the future. Yeah, yeah, I could do that outreach now just to, because it is, it's, it's only 24 people. It's not that difficult actually. So I could get permission this time around, make sure that, you know, outside of the 10 who already said they were fine with it. I could follow up with the other 14. And then in the future, as Bruce mentioned, it could be one of the questions that we ask on the nomination form. Are you okay with us releasing your position, you know, overall in the voting results? And then we would know future. So my, my feeling on this one is we should, we should release the data. I know it's, it's going to be uncomfortable for some, but I think it's one of the, I mean, I did this right three years ago. And I just feel that the transparency is probably more important. You put yourself up for a lot of risks when you run in an election like this. And I think, you know, if I hadn't been successful and I, you know, got one vote, sure, that would be a bummer and it would feel embarrassing. But, you know, that's, that's the kind of, that's one of the risks you take when you do something like this. So that's my, that's my feeling on this one. It's my red hat kind of thing. I mean, yeah. So rather than asking people to opt in, you would just tell them by running, you are. No, no, I think, I think out of respect, it's great to ask them. You know, it's sort of a, you know, I think there's no harm in doing that. But my feeling is that we should be releasing this data. I think we should release it. And then I think that, but only after talking to folks, the remaining folks and making sure they're, they're good with it this year. And then moving forward, we should make it really clear to anybody who does put their hat in the ring that the data will be released. Yeah, I think we're going to ask, just state that this is part of, part of our, our process. Yep. Okay. And that's just an expectation. All right. Great. I recommend, I think that gives you all the guidance you need, Holly, right? Yeah, definitely. So we're going to get some data out there. That feels good. I agree. All right. So I suggest we keep moving where like we started five minutes late since I'm trying to keep this on track. Fair enough. Uh, yeah, and I'll just say to Michael who's been sending some notes in the questions area, just to, um, follow with me via email Michael if you don't mind, but we'll sounds like we're going to get some stuff out there. Okay. So the next part is an update on Drupal eight accelerate and we're going to take 20 minutes or up to 20 minutes. Did we get Angie on the call yet? No. Yeah, she's on the call. You're in the, you're a little, uh, in the background, Angie. You're in a well. Is this better? You're a muscle. Are you speaking through a teddy bear or something? It's going. Go to is going. Maybe I'll be there. Yeah, I'm still on it. Okay. Hold on. Let me get rid of this. Is that better or no? I can hear you. I think it's fine. Yeah. It's still a little soft, but I think we can all hear you. I give up having a really hard time with my life. Okay. So, yes, Drupal eight accelerate. Um, so, um, I'm sorry, sorry, I know you just got started. I hate to interrupt, but, um, uh, this was, this was actually scheduled for the executive session. Is that a mistake? Okay. Yeah. Two parts. Oh, okay. This is not raising the funds, but this is not raising the funds. This is where, how we're spending them. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, can you guys hear me? Yep. Great. Um, so basically, you know, we've done a lot with triple eight accelerate so far in terms of the, you know, like bug bounties that we've done $500 a piece to start and then more if people are successful with, with their initial 500 and they come back for more. We've also done several sprints that have ended in huge success. We're in the midst of one right now here at dev days, or I am right now, um, doing performance analysis on Drupal eight and trying to make sure we've got all the criticals identified and people are whipping away at, uh, and getting the performance issues, you know, about fix. So this is really awesome stuff and D8 accelerates help a lot with this. Um, but you know, we were talking, I was talking with trees and some other people and kind of it seems like in order to, um, in order to really accelerate Drupal eight in order to make the most of people's, you know, very significant contributions, something that we need to do is kind of spend almost all the money that we can really before LA, um, because we spend it much after LA. We're no longer like accelerating. We're just, you know, we're kind of getting things, we're keeping things rolling along, but we really need like a huge push to spend as much money as possible as soon as possible. So something that we in the D8 accelerate community wanted to propose was, was sort of two things. One was the ability to fund, um, part time work for one month periods with key contributors. We need to be key contributors who've already had success with the Drupal eight accelerate money. Um, so for example, we have a couple of people, Daniel Wayner, Andre Matiescu, um, and a few other people, Lee Rowland, this kind of thing, who have done great work on, you know, smaller D8 accelerate grants. The idea would be rather than having them come to us for money every two weeks and us having to discuss it and approve it and, you know, whatever that we would instead fund a larger chunk of their time to just focus on criticals, um, with the oversight that someone on the D8 accelerate community would meet with them weekly to bang out a list of issues for that week, find out where they're blocked on the issues, you know, from the previous week and sort of make sure things are going along and sort of do the reporting aspect of D8 accelerate on a weekly basis instead of having to do it all at the end. That's sort of one ask that we have of the board is to do this, you know, sort of formally the executive board has already heard this proposal and given us a, a kind of go ahead, but we felt like this was a big enough shift that is probably worth, um, you know, talking to people. So the proposal would specifically be up to 20 hours from a week funding for a month, uh, renewable at the end of the month and things are going well to key Drupal eight contributors who've had success with Drupal eight accelerate in the past. And then the second thing that aspect of that is one of the key contributors that we would like to fund is, um, a core committer who is actually on the D8 accelerate committee. Um, and it's a person who doesn't receive funding from their employer and all of his Drupal eight time is donated out of his nights and weekends fund. Um, and so the, the ask from the board, we didn't feel appropriate. That was cool for us to approve because, you know, he's on the, you know, committee and even if he recused himself, it just looks a little funny. So another request we had was the ability to, um, get approval from the board to fund, uh, catch this time as well. So they're just sort of the down. We have, uh, we have separate discussion times set aside for that in, um, exact session that feels like personnel. So the, the one we're discussing for this period is just the general idea of that funding part-time work for key contributors who got a proven track record. It'd be larger buckets of money. So up to, uh, I'd have to do that $24,000, I think, a pop. Um, but the idea would be that we would, um, you know, be giving more oversight to these than we do the normal D8 accelerate, uh, funds. And the idea would be that they can just stay focused for longer periods than on, you know, killing criticals instead of having to constantly come begging for more money. Hey Angie, if I can summarize, I think what I'm hearing is that it would be the changes you're asking the board to, to give approval to are, um, funding in larger chunks, funding potentially core maintainers as well, uh, who don't otherwise get any funding, um, the ability to fund a core maintainer. And I think there was also another piece that the funding, um, might go to an employer rather than to an individual if necessary. Is that right? Yes, that is, that is true. Um, to date, I don't think we need to do that, but it would be nice. So there's certain situations where I've done a lot of, uh, conversating with various, um, business people in these various events that I've been going to trying to figure out, you know, there's some people who we like basically would take as much time as, of theirs as we can get because they're awesome and they know everything about the active issues we have on the go and stuff, but they're, they're also employed by, you know, a, you know, a company and so in some cases it might make sense to contract directly with a company more so than the individual or at least loop in their employer that this is going on so that they can adjust, um, their ability and or potentially augment their hours with additional companies sponsored hours at the same time. Um, so yeah, that is correct. I feel very 50-50 about this. What 50 do you make sure uncomfortable, Diana? Well, I, I, I think that, um, it would be, I think it would be great to, uh, fund these people who really, who know what they're doing and enable them to get on with it. I'm actually really kind of 100% on that bit. The bit where I might be uneasy is the sort of traditional, um, reticence and, and reluctance there's been to do for the Drupal, for the Drupal Association to be involved in the funding of core work and I feel like we, we would be consciously crossing that line and I want to do that with, you know, I want to, I have some trepidation about that but on the other hand I think well if we, if we've addressed all the issues that and barriers to that already then let's just get on with it. I guess that's where my discomfort is. Is it, is it time? In which case let's do it but I feel like we are crossing a threshold. Well, yeah Don, I think, I think we already crossed that threshold, right? I think we're, the money's already going to that it's just a question of can those funds be used in these slightly modified ways, right? Right, gotcha. In which case let's just get on with it. Right, I think, I think that what I'm hearing as, as the evidence for this is that we would be more efficient with the funds and um, so that we are increasing the, the speed at which the funds can have an impact, right? So there's a sense of urgency here where we do it in smaller chunks. The amount of money that, that the individuals receive is probably not going to be substantively different. It's just that we're going to approve it in larger chunks which means that the overhead that the, the committee has in overseeing their time gets to be reduced because they, they aren't coming back and asking for money every week. They ask, yeah, money you know a month at a time, that kind of thing. And efficiency is definitely a plus-plus, definitely a plus-plus. And I just want to provide transparency in terms of like the D8 Accelerate Committee, what we've set up is, you know, out of respect we want to be very careful with the community's money. That for any proposal that comes either through us to the community grants or that one of us proposes is a kind of a branch maintainer grant. We have a discussion about it. We sort of weigh pros and cons. We decided, you know, who's the list of people. It's like, but basically it's like a couple of hours of work to fund five hours of work. And it's not very efficient. Yeah, so I would say, Angie, first of all, I'm a big fan of it because I think the reason that if you go back to sort of why we wanted to go big on a big fundraiser is exactly this, is that we're all keenly aware of the sort of impact of switching costs and nickel and diming little, little grants to people versus getting blocks of time. And that the big problem in moving these things is people who know what they're doing with dedicated chunks of time that you can operate under more like a project and less like less like a moonlighting. And so I kind of feel like that is why we wanted a bigger pot of money so we could give you guys jurisdiction to do that. And I appreciate that you're bringing that to us because I think the transparency is good, particularly in the case where we have an individual who might have a confidence of interest. So I think that's good. But I think overall this to me feels very in keeping with accelerating, right? Like the whole idea of accelerating is not like, hey, let's get a little bit of money and throw it at little patches, it's no, let's get some dudes who can really crank. And I think to me this feels like progress, not a problem. Yeah, I think it's just that we publicly announced all the guidelines that the funds will be given by. And so I think that because this is so to the community this is so recent that we announced it that we're already modifying it. I think that's why we brought it back to the board. Also to create a process by which if a member of the committee itself wants to apply for funding to create a precedent that that gets escalated to the board and executive session to vote on so that the committee itself wouldn't be voting for money for itself. Yeah, I totally agree. Like I said, I really do appreciate that we bring it back here. I think it's smart and prudent, but I'm a big fan. Hey, I did do I did say one thing though. I forgot to say one thing that the funding company thing is it gets a little bit tricky. I want to be a little bit careful about that and do that on a I would like to see those approved. And the reason is there are companies out there as Dries is highlighted in the past to who have made large contributions to hiring core developers with that core intent in mind. And I'm concerned that those companies would feel put off by the idea that we're we're paying them to pay their people. I would actually prefer if possible that it's more of a conversation with the company that says hey, you know, can can this person go, you know, can this person moonlight for we're going to we intend to fund them for this chunk of time. How can you work with us to help that rather than pass it through them because the perception that we'd be paying companies for their people that could start to I think that could start to back for us. In other words just to summarize that you'd be comfortable with like someone from the D8 Accelerate community having a conversation with, you know, if we wanted to fund contributor A and contributor A work for company B, you're comfortable with a D8 Accelerate member contacting whoever the project manager is or whatever at company B and saying, hey, you know, we really want to give contributor A money. We know that they work for you like can we work out a situation where we can fund them for up to a certain amount of time and that's in a way that's still respectful of the fact that you still have clients up to do, you know, and then you're comfortable with that but not so much like we're going to actually subcontract company A for contributor. I lost track of my letters but you don't want to see a subcontracting. You still want to see us going to individuals but you have no problem with having the conversation with their business people to make sure it's done in a respectful way. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean I I'd be definitely would be curious to hear what sort of what Dries and Vessa and Tiffany think from from their perspective but you know I know this kind of stuff has gotten us in the past trouble in the past like paying a Drupal shop to do something that other people think they're doing already or should just do just never looks good and it never ends well and I and I just would rather the person get paid who's doing the work directly and not sort of like I know if you came to me and said hey I want to I want to I need some of Jonathan Headstrom's time to work on some issues and we want to fund him you know we would rather give him some time off and we wouldn't say all right write a check to us and then we'll pay him you know. Yes, yeah okay and and I've gotten similar feedback from other company owners and that's kind of why this is coming up because we don't want to undermine the business you know what I mean like we don't want people double dipping and you know what we've got a feedback on two fronts one is like I already paid this guy to work on right so why are you also is what we're doing yeah yeah or B is um I really wish you would have given me a heads up that you needed 15 hours a week from this person because they're in the middle of a client project and you know I want to have a conversation with them to make sure that they understand that or what you know anything yes those are I would say those are the two issues that I would see and then the third variant which we're not seeing yet but good is what if you're black mesh and you're like great so I pay Kathy full-time because that was my contribution and now you're going to turn around and pay I don't know panty on money so that one of their guys yeah or and then they're like why did I do this then right yeah I would say that black mesh would say that and I don't want to get into that sort of you know looking at gift horse in the mouth kind of thing yeah that's that's exactly where I mean we've talked about this in the past but that's where it gets tricky because imagine two competitors one is actively investing in Drupal and the other is being paid to invest in Drupal and I think that is a that is a that is a problem I think yeah yeah and I think it's probably it's it is probably more perception than reality but I agree to reason just look I think if we just pay the people individually we ask the companies to be lenient on their time and we understand that you know we're paying an individual not a company it's just cleaner well heard so we have about three minutes left in terms of time for this discussion it seems I could be wrong and I could use a little bit of help here but it looks like there's multiple multiple changes that we would like to make would it be useful to I assume we have to vote on those correct and and if so would it be useful to maybe formulate these changes offline based on the discussion and then vote in email we can I don't know what do we have a vote ready I don't have a vote ready because it was more I guess it's up to you guys if you think we need to vote on it my mostly my concern was kind of hearing your concern it's it's not you know it doesn't make any charter changes it doesn't do any you know it's not like we're asking can you see it accelerate money to also pay for vacations for core developers or something but I guess if you feel like it's a significant amount of change to fund individuals for longer period of time versus the initial little short study bug bounties that we originally talked about then I think we should vote on it but if you don't then what I'm hearing is plus one for longer contracts keep it to individuals only and it's fine to loop in companies to give them a heads up and if that's the case and there's nobody opposed to that then I would just communicate that back to the D8 Accelerate people and we'll go with that. I don't think we need to vote I think we're just talking about a time time time shift in terms of yeah and I think it's a good a good idea. All right let me let me just do like strawman's poll that's okay is there anyone that is opposed to any of these any of these things? All right it looks like everybody seems to be in favor of not voting and recommend the changes. Awesome. Thank you very much I really appreciate it guys and ladies sorry folks. I think we can move on to the next topic. Yeah I just want to say thank you for spending thank you for spending our money wisely and doing something for this that's awesome. No problem my pleasure thank you for working so hard on getting the money to spend widely. Yes thank you and our next topic I think is a redesign discussion focused on the content strategy work and I think we asked the board to review all the materials in this packet prior to getting here because we try to set them up to be pretty self-discoverable and we were going to focus on questions that will help guide the implementation as we move forward. So we put some questions out there the big long questions is to keep the discussion going but the general gist of it Josh if I am correct is what of this resonates with you what of this would you like to see shifts how do we you know what's the feedback that we can incorporate into the implementation here. Someone's got to go first right. Okay so I what is Matthew it totally resonated to me moving things to a persona based kind of implementation as opposed to content type based implementation. I think things are terribly confusing and difficult at this point for folks to really get involved unless they're kind of deep in the machinations of how d.o operates at this juncture. I think it's hard to find things and all of that all of that resonated with me very nicely. I echo the concern that is in one of these packets around how the heck do we effectively manage 10, 12,000 people who would be potentially adding and modifying content although to a certain extent we already kind of have that situation going on it's just we're not actually actively managing it as closely as maybe we ought to be. Does that sound right to everybody? It indicates to me you're either really struggling with something or something else but are you guys what is it if you are struggling with a response here what is the struggle that might be a good thing to talk about? I'm silent because I don't think I'm really I'm across enough of it there's a lot of detail and I don't think I'm across enough of it to say anything useful or have any questions of import. In my case I'll go ahead Jeff. I looked at the materials as well and at the questions and to me they felt fairly tactical and like I don't know do we use content types or I mean I felt it was I don't know if it's useful for us to I don't know I didn't feel like big big problems that we need to help it but maybe I'm wrong. Weeding the board? Yes. If I would echo what Dries said it felt like a lot of this was in the weeds. As opposed to helping direct overall strategy around content. It really shouldn't be us talking about whether something is access controlled via content types or via roles or those kinds of things. I don't think. So I think that's true. There's a lot of implementation detail in the presentations because stuff to talk about some of these things and their implications without understanding what the implementation is going to look like. I think the questions that we're trying to have are actually fairly strategic questions. So you know how do we this is a this is a big shift right that we're going to make introducing this content model. So what are some of the things you want to see us do to help the community embrace the new structure like how can we set ourselves up for success so the community can really can really take this on a run with it. There's also questions of governance. I think those are really important for the board to address. So I think we're not looking for feedback around like do you think this is the right name for this content type but we are really concerned about how we get it out in the community in the right way. And and how do we tie it into our strategic framework such as it is at the moment so that we're we're doing this work in ways that show us we're helping to meet our mission. So I agree that these are strategic level questions. I just don't think they're board level strategy. I think that this is kind of what we set up the content working group to advise on. I think you know they are important questions. And I think that that's as I understand the shift from tactical to strategic in terms of the working groups these I think that that CWG could could really help flesh this out and provide more guidance then I think it's probably appropriate for the board too. I'd like to see some recommendations come back so we can talk about the specific recommendations. I guess one question is what is the what is the position of the content working group on this like are they on board with this or yeah I had a look at it and for most of the details I don't mind all too much because I also feel it's fairly tactical. The only question that actually came up to my mind is like it's a fine content strategy and loads of stuff in total but that's this really addressed to the need of it being evolving all the time. I personally found that part a bit lacking because it's being fairly static because it's such a big piece of work and now I'll be like doing a one-off fix or is it going to be like evolving things to be able to measure and keep on improving all the time. So I found myself the reason I was quiet is I find myself a little bit in a in a unique situation of I'm not usually the client for this kind of thing and so I would agree with most people it I know it you have to get a little bit technical to to explain things but I I did get the feeling that there was an awful lot here for me to wrap my brain around that didn't seem like maybe it was the right level of detail like I think there would be another way to put something above this that said hey here's the things that we can promise if this is done properly instead of hey you have to discern from all this data what what would be different if we did this properly and to me to do this right would be print everything off and spend three hours really wrapping my head around the implications of the content type changes and those types of things and that just I don't know I guess maybe it's not a level that maybe it is appropriate for the board it just not something I thought I was committing to in reading yet if that made sense I also I still have one core problem too which is it starts with a nice high level vision for for the audiences but I brought this up in the last board meeting I I still I'm still struggling with why some of our core audiences are missing and how could this be comprehensive if it only focuses on the people learning Drupal is that sorry does that make sense to anyone yes and and the pyramid the pyramid is good but that pyramid is basically it's a way from becoming someone who's new to learning Drupal to someone who's a master of Drupal but what about the people that want to use Drupal like they this is this is where the strategy comes in to play right so like part of part of what I hear you guys asking for is it completely makes sense to me but we haven't had a framework to get to give you that kind of strategic context because you know I think I you know I feel like the first time we had a clear set of goals to start working with was in January but it hasn't been a tool that we can use on a staff level yet we're close I also history's got disconnected and hang on you should now be able to unmute Greece sorry so so that part is still that part is still tough right because we haven't had a full framework to deliver this within the context so to Vase's point of being able to say when we implement this it's going to pull these levers that drive these objectives forward that tie to these goals that really is in the mission right like we just haven't had that so so I get that that's I get that's missing I hear you guys asking for that I totally I totally sympathize with that I part of what fits into that Jeff is this part of the overall strategy for the part of the overall strategy for Drupal.org as a program has been this persona and this shift from one of the conversations we had coming out of personal work with Whitney Pess was this shift from learner to skill and how if we really wanted to have an impact on the if we really wanted to have an impact that was the transition that we had the focus on and it doesn't mean there isn't any other content available for those folks but we do have to have a focus and it's that shift that will create more Drupal developers that we need out in that community it is that shift that will bring us more community members to do the community to to participate in the community which is something that we need to do it is that shift that aligns with so many of the objectives that we've laid out in the last bit of time with the leadership team that map to those goals that we discussed in January so that's where that part comes from right but I think our goals are around around really three audiences one is the people learning Drupal or using Drupal the people that are we want to in the future adopt Drupal and the community itself working and this content model for me addresses one of those not three of them like I don't know like where would for instance where would the whole association sub-site fit in this user group Jeff did you read the content strategy document as well because the content model is very about the content types but the content model tries to take the personas and map them to the user cases which include user cases around information and marketing and those top-level sections I hope that they speak to it if they don't we can definitely do some revision on that but I would say of the two documents that one is definitely more about the strategy where the model is more about the specifics of how do you achieve that strategy gotcha I would take a look at those those blocks on that and if that that doesn't begin to answer it then that's what I need to know and be able to take back to the team because right that's the part I would need to iterate on so that so that you guys do have those answers yeah and I have to say Jeff again there were four goals that were set out develop sufficient professionals lead the community and focus an efficient effective development of Drupal ensure the sustainability of the project right the fourth goal is increase Drupal adoption but that that learner to skilled transition is critical for those four first three goals yep no no by the way this is not meant to mean that any of this is not not not good or not not directed at that I just I'm just struggling a bit with whether it's comprehensive that's that's been a concern I've had since since seeing the first one but it's okay I mean you know look the the I haven't I haven't invested enough time to be honest with you well I I totally hear that I totally hear the feedback that it's got to somehow be rolled up in a different way and you know that's something to to work on well I just I guess one thing like one question I have is like so we'll like we'll groups dot Drupal dot org be heroes because it's user generated content if that's not there isn't really any content strategy around that right could you say that again different links to like the the whole sub like the sub domain of groups right is that is that included in the content strategy yes in this version the first version that we had shown earlier on and then based on feedback from the working groups and internal conversations about like how do we achieve the governance model that we need to make sure that everything can work turned into a conversation we're like oh wow we're going to put all the things on Drupal dot org that you need to run groups so the only two things that we're going to be left on groups were user groups and interest groups and that's the case it's actually better for us to pull it on the Drupal dot org because then we can include that content people's profiles that actually connect them to that part of their community contribution which is something we can't grab to do on Drupal dot org got you all right well I'll be the first to admit I probably need to invest a little bit more time in this than I have I really haven't done anything but skim it to be honest well I guess that's my question is you know these content working group is set up specifically to spend time on questions like this and I don't have these questions been run by them absolutely the last content working group we actually went through this model and kind of talked about how it would be included in this board update and does it look like the general direction keep in mind this is not the first version of it we've gone through several versions and also we've had feedback not only from the content working group which is you know obviously important from the content strategy standpoint but also from a what does the migration mean to stakeholders that for instance are groups maintainers or have been heavily involved in groups and yesterday and then again today we had meetings with those stakeholders to walk them through this process and get their feedback as well so it's while that feedback has not been incorporated yet generally everybody who's seen it has been positive with the idea and I would agree that most people start getting into the well what does this look like specifically and that's where it gets really it becomes a challenge we're still trying to figure out how best to share that so that we can get people involved in the specifics but still actually put together a timeline for how to how to roll out all these changes because obviously that's a lot of issues to create to do this significant of a shift right now I meant these these discussion questions that I mean is there a recommendation from have you talked about these strategy questions with CWG and is there a recommendation that they've already made that we could consider right I don't know that we had the discussion questions written up by the time we had the DCWG meeting these were meant for the board but I mean yes I don't disagree with that yeah I feel like I hear what you're saying Tiffany around it does you have raised that this discussion maybe happens in a different place and that's you know in our shifting sands yeah no I just mean like you know to echo Jeff's point like they're they're tasked with being more immersed in Drupal.org all the time than the board is and so I think you know while we could you know I'm certain we could come up with opinions on this it's not really we'd have to dig into it at a level that that we don't usually go to in order to be able to thoughtfully answer right so and get a discussion on this I think what I hear you suggesting which is not a model that we've really used in the past but we could implement here is these kinds of things we have these strategic conversations with the working groups that then basically are presenting them to the board with a recommendation for adoption basically yeah well I sorry I don't say yes for coming that would be helpful to me but I think it's also for all of us I don't think it's necessarily that we're trying to like avoid the dirtiness of having to understand it it's more just I'm not sure it's well summarized for me if I could just maybe take another stab at more clearly articulating what what my concern would be I would rather see what would come to the board would be kind of from the working group via their vendor and Josh's team and everyone else sort of like these are the things we want to accomplish if we could accomplish these would Drupal.org be a better place and would you be super happy that we're doing it and and we're like yes and then they come back and they're like okay this is how we're going to do it and you know what I mean instead I have like content types I have a one pager that I think is too high level that doesn't actually say any of that stuff and then I have a another thing that's I'm not sure what it is it just feels like okay these three things together I would have to wrap my head around to in order to say yes if all these things happened I'd be super happy yeah okay I hear you're saying I don't know what the solution is I feel like this has been a huge struggle in general for us but both at the at every level of communication around sharing broad ideas versus specific details for example I definitely think part of it gets better when we have a strategic framework to be able to basically like you know even just visually show like this rolls up to this rolls up to this makes a happy face at the end over here right when we get to mission and I think that'll help I do I do feel like there is a tension around not providing that detail because there is it's one thing in it's one thing to talk about implementing feature it's another thing to have implemented the feature and then deal with the experience of it right and I feel like we get a lot of a lot there's a lot of yes that's a good idea and then the thing gets done and it's like you know it's done all wrong somehow because there's a lot of there in between there's a lot of meat in between that right so I'm not arguing about it I'm I'm saying that's like it I feel like there's lots of tensions here that we're we're trying to work out around which information goes where at what level and how to communicate that and incorporate feedback on the right places all all around yeah I mean it's kind of more of a symptom and like the the issue that we had around the documentation working group not not being involved in the in the content strategy and the staff rolling out guides which were mostly about marketing but really also about documentation I feel like that kind of that what happened there is a bit of a symptom of of what you're discussing of what you're saying here is like what is the right level of information for us what's the right level of information for the content working group and where are the you know the communication lines about this really quite fundamental change I don't think any of us individually are qualified to to really make make the call on this we don't we don't have enough centralized vision about what this should be you know that sense of a product owner for Drupal.org is is still one that we don't really we don't really have it's the da itself is it I don't know that you know I think that's why we're if I can throw out like that's actually one of the topics that we're going to be talking about the board retreat and Drupal Conor Lai is figuring out what is what is the acceptable level of ownership communication process like what does that actually need to look like I felt like I was beginning to get answers in the first six months I was on the job I actually feel like that's become less solidified over time so that's definitely something I mean as a I mean as a CTO that's a little bit disturbing so I definitely need that feedback from you guys to know what you see my job is being what you see the role of the team is being what you see the role the working groups is being and then what is your own role in approving for final approval because if we don't have that kind of structure if we don't have a process that we can repeat then we'll we'll we'll keep rebuilt reinventing so I think that's a good point I think I think we're having too much of a good thing which is in the old days the board would be all over this these three documents peeling through them telling you what content types to use now what we're saying is don't bother us with content types right so I don't know if this is a good problem or bad problem I think I was just trying to say if you feel like you need something from us maybe it's something in between this and that in terms of level of detail right that's I get maybe I should have just third tries a charm how about something in between this and level of detail and then and then we're helpful but not knitnoity because I don't want to be knitnoity I don't want to tell you that's not the book module that's the blah blah blah you know I mean I don't want to go there and I also don't want to be like you know at the level of like you know sunshine and rainbows where it's like purpose of trip that I guess make the world a wonderful place from the board you know what I mean like I I like to be somewhere helpful in between which is like hey if you could solve this problem we're like developers are leaving in droves because they hate the experience of these tools boom there you go like here we've got five things to fix that problem like you know what I mean like map map we want to be in the mapping problems to map our goals and problems to your implementation and then we want to trust you to implement you know what I mean and I do think that the prioritization process that we put in historically above okay so here's a whole bunch of possibility and here are the objectives that we can use that say these help reach this objective versus these don't and we implemented that with the software working group and the plan is to start implementing that with all working groups not just the triple dot org ones but also documentation also technology working or technical working group just to try to include enough voices that we can actually spend our time on the right priorities but then there's still going to be there I mean there will always be a bit of back and forth after that point and and and all the board wants to be involved and that would be also that would be a great clarifying point to have brought back so I'm sure Dries wants to wrap up uh but we're going to check myself but um I have some ideas as well and um you know I can share them with you offline holy okay can I quickly ask for two things on top of this actually first of all if we could get like a clear set of priorities for the board to approve because we are going to run out of time and budget for for implementing all of this stuff so I think the board needs to decide if like a new triple adopter or existing community members can be more important do this like really really difficult setting of priorities thing that probably nobody else can do and the second thing importantly would be like who decides on what the board clear doesn't want to be involved in setting content types for the site that I think that that much is clear but I think it's really unclear on on in a future who's going to decide on what level so sort of I think the board should say like what gets brought up to the board and and what doesn't and who can actually deal with it uh so I think we have a lot of that we're trying to engineer the discussion at the retreat in Los Angeles to address a bunch of those kinds of issues and you know getting that frame that Jeff is looking for to parse the stuff it at at the right level is also something that we've been working on and we'll have a model to talk about in Los Angeles and then in the meantime we just have to figure out and I'll just have to huddle about you know whether we feel like we can move forward with implementation here so yeah and and I would not interpret anything that we've said as as being no there's a problem it's more just yeah but you know what I mean it's not like yeah we're in a better position we're in a better position when you guys feel like you can you know you can proactively endorse things that happen right so sure I mean just to be frank you're going to have exactly the same problem when this goes out in the community it's going to be way too much to drill into digests we're going to nitpick little stupid things that don't matter in this site of the bigger thing you know what I mean like this is just the board rejecting this is a microcosm of a larger problem which is like we need to be communicating early and often when we're making few lung exchanges first get people used to the idea that they're coming then show them early drafts to the work and why and then show them this and then show them that I mean because you do that with the board pretty well I feel like with Drupalcon you know we get an idea of like these are the kinds of places we're looking at and then we get an idea we've narrowed it down to these couples and then we get an idea of this is what we're proposing and here's the budget if we got all of that in one meeting we would be like what where does this come from blah blah blah you know so we need to perfect that art of early and often communication with any big change we try and do especially to the website because there's so many different people who have such strong ownership in that thing yeah well go down and kill how do you do it yeah well in core and why do you do that again no how do you do that core sorry I still didn't hear the question how do you do that in core so in core everything is transparent from the moment someone gets an idea right like the issues there and you can see the thought process and once you the whole entire chain all of them failed attempts people made at a solution the different twists and turns it made the arguments involved and getting to the solution et cetera et cetera so we don't have the problem in core for the inner people because they know everything or if they don't know they can look at us so that's the problem is like I think I think all of this reference material is really really great to provide but I think that high level summary the board is looking for that explains the why's and the what are we hoping to get out of this and this kind of stuff the community is going to need that as well and it's sort of like show your work like you wouldn't in math class and then there's where you can like link off to the nice long presentation with all the details but it's like without that and what you just present this finished baked cake to people they're gonna they're not gonna react well how do we blend especially if they try like I recommend that we table this discussion because we can keep going better to regroup with a smaller group offline yeah because I don't see this discussion being over in the next few minutes anyway I would I would I would like to brainstorm with you guys on how to solve this problem so please let's have a conversation next week or whenever it's handy and the big picture problem I see here as opposed to the detail of exactly what we're gonna do is we're not talking about in some ways we're not talking about a website we're talking about a city or a planet you know it in some way with this is being approached like it's it's just any old website redevelopment with all the right bits and pieces that we're all familiar with as well professionals but the the impact on the people who live in the city is you know is the hard part that's my thought so we have we have some work to do on this but you know Joshua and the rest of it do not don't feel discouraged this is great work yeah I'm sure yeah I agree like it's clear that there's a lot of you know thought that went into this and they guys have gone through you know multiple iterations and and all of these things that I think we just need to you know look at it slightly differently make it consumable slightly differently and I'm pretty confident that this will all play out well so all right is there any other topics or things that anyone wants to bring up for the open session if not I recommend that we move into the executive session let's do it all right thanks everybody thank you