Protocol writer: qyliss
Start: 21:02
End: ??
Attendance: qyliss, stephie, sio, xeno, spacekatia, embr, erincandescent, lis, zotan, gari

AfraPay Status Update (zotan, embr)

Next step is to order a prototype PCB (won't support all the final features). Will be possible to use iOS devices as tokens.

Making large plena work better (erincandescent)

We've been maintaining a Redeliste, but it gets very long. It means you might have to wait 30 mins before you can reply to something, and then you have to reply to five different things all at once, and this makes it difficult to keep track of.

Having more narrowly-scoped topics would be helpful. But could we break it into one sub-topic at a time?

qyliss: a system that I've seen work well has been to have a facilitator that keeps the discussion on track and calls on people to speak. a way i've seen it done successfully in the past was to have two hands raised for a direct, immediate response, and one hand raised for not that. this naturally leads to single sub-topics being discussed one at a time, without having to manually try to split them apart.

sio: last plenum had not much detail on the agenda, which might have helped. Having a single person be facilitator works well if you have few enough people, but after too many it gets to be a lot of load, so maybe it can be multiple people? One to do the protocoll, one to make sure that everybody who wants to gets to speak, and one to keep the discussion on track.

katia: threaded plenums.

xeno: last plenum had two things that made it very complicated. one was a very broad topic, and it could have been a brainstorm before detailed discussion to break it into smaller points. the amount of people amplified this, and some guidelines for how we structure plenums would have been good.

sio: maybe we could copy some other organisations, but we'd need to integrate them into our culture

qyliss: let's try 2 things next plenum: nominating people to the roles outlined by sio at the start of the plenum, and letting people indicate whether they want to do a direct response or not. then we can see how each of those things go, and once we're happy with it we can write it up.

sio: another benefit of this is that there are other people who can help out with the protocoll if the person writing the procotoll wants to speak

[ editors note: qyliss has to keep asking for silence after speaking to write down what has been said ]

plenum consensus to try those two things next plenum

should we time box people? that might prevent having multiple topics going at once? or maybe a better thing to do is to only time box opening statements / single hand points. this should be a measure that we use when we need it, not always. another option would be to just tell people "it's been five minutes", "it's been ten", just to keep them in mind of how much time they've been taking. it's important to keep pressure low, it's already difficult for people to talk in plenums. "too much time" is subjective, and we can make sure that people have time to say what they want to say. it's difficult to do correctly, though. training might be helpful

qyliss: at the CCCB there have been communication workshops recently. maybe we could look into those, see if they would be helpful for the communication things we want to work on, and maybe we could have one here or something?

We will try stuff out, and iterate. This is a small plenum anyway.