---
# System prepended metadata

title: The Turing Way - Core Staff delivery plan (28 June)
tags: ['governance ', TTW Staff meeting]

---

# The Turing Way - Core Staff delivery plan Meetings

## Bi-weekly meetings

:::info
**Sessions in June & July:**
- Thursday 08 June - **[Meeting notes here](https://hackmd.io/cR7dO1RvRNyVraIL005zXg)**
- Wednesday 28 June 
- Thursday 13 July, meeting at 13:00
- Thursday 27 July (meeting will be changed as this day we will have the Full Day Practitioners Hub Workshop)


**Join Zoom Meeting**
https://turing-uk.zoom.us/j/99448423769?pwd=NkkzZ3JjL2J3R3BJRmFHcVFtWm45dz09

**Meeting ID**: 994 4842 3769
**Passcode**: 429581
:::


**Who can join?** 
This call is joined by *The Turing Way* Core Staff:

* Kirstie Whitaker
* Malvika Sharan
* Anne Lee Steele
* Alexandra Araujo Alvarez
* Arielle Bennett (subject to her availability)


## To Review Pre-Meeting

- [Governance Spreadsheet - based on Community Call from 09 June](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gjAtPCgk8Izh-xB1iK56wDOTe2ygHq5NG_-WFEPX-40/edit#gid=1687914303)
- [Practitioners Hub Website Plan](https://docs.google.com/document/d/17MSStupgKWtY9E7OqXS2vL-0Orcd3INDb1V2LY4pKtw/edit#heading=h.kehfirdlwxmb)
- [Book Dash: Committee Evaluation Meeting](https://hackmd.io/TPwTPzmSRKqvY37mwCiUFA)

## Check-in

- Alex
- Malvika
- Kirstie
- Anne

[ Anne ]

**What aspect of our (current) Turing Way management are you holding accountability for?**

- Malvika: To summarise the governance review notes and add the action on GitHub: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gjAtPCgk8Izh-xB1iK56wDOTe2ygHq5NG_-WFEPX-40/edit#gid=1687914303
    - Share resources and reference that the team need on Slack
- Kirstie: Clarifying TPS+Turing Way relation
    - Turing's investment transparency about The Turing Way 
    - Code of Conduct: utilising the RCM team: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/open-community-building/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
    - 
- Anne: Update the theory and general process for working groups
    - update this document before we involve WG in writing about their working group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z_r0G6dmtlw0icQ_ctkhLG_QxZDhuRZaSTSkGvAVK6w/edit
- Alex: Three level decision making chart
    - Levels of decision making (ref shared by BGT: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Three_Levels_of_FOSS_Governance)

---

**Parking lot for End of July**

- Core Team retirement
- Rebuilding a steering and an advisory committee
    - with the community leaders/volunteers
    - TPS staff who substantially contribute to TTW (lead on areas important for TTW)
- Various TPS team members' roles

---

## Action: Malvika

1. **Update style guide, template and consistency guide**
- Who designs fun new things like a new landing page?
    - Design suggestions have happened on an adhoc basis, with more experimental ideas usually being acted on at Book Dash
- Who decides if an edit should be a new chapter or just an edit?
    - [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md) - Project members - could be more clear but it is there
- Who to consult if you want to revise or restructure a chapter?
    - [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md) - Project members - could be more clear but it is there, Update style guide, template and consistency guide
        - should also be part of contribution guideline
- How long can sections/chapters etc be?
    - The [Consistency Chapter](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/consistency/consistency-structure.html) and [Chapter Template Folder](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/tree/main/book/templates/chapter-template) contains lots of relevant info but not exactly the lenght of the chapters/sections
- How to represent whose opinion's is reflected in a subchapter/chapter (not even resolving, just showing)?
    - The original chapters are proposed on issues, discussed with other members, and the editing happens. The book is written by people, and reviewed by the community. Enhancement Proposals are suggested through issues as well. Not sure what this question means. Someone in the HackMD commented: [democratic mediums](https://medlabboulder.gitlab.io/democraticmediums/). It should definitely be a simpler process than JEPs :sweat_smile: Django -- clarify what they mean by whose opinion beyond the people writing and reviewing.
        - Update style guide, template and consistency guide -- should also be part of contribution guideline. Need a high level decision making committee to oversee particularly thorny examples. Additionally we can articulate guiding principles - human rights. Consider the tension between a transparency statement (the viewpoint of the author) vs not having individual authorship on chapters.

2. **contribution guideline**
- Update from the previous section
- transparency vs not being able to find things
    - The information should be easy to find to avoid undocumented structures of power. *Should this be in the onboarding process?* KW note: that this can never be addressed! Relationships are powerful and should always be powerful!
        - Also part of governance - Team is documenting the three levels of decision making for decision making. More clarity around who and where decisions get made.
- Add the review process
    - A chapter exists but doesn't define The Turing Way process
    - Project members - review, assign and approve PR. The name of the section could be changed for better understading? [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md)
        - Ideally community manager and infrastructure leads should be doing this. But recently we also discussed that a list of potential reviewers can be added - so people can identify who they can ask for help.
- Who do I _nominate_ to review a PR
    - Project members - review, assign and approve PR. The name of the section could be changed for better understading? [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md)
- When a piece of work is "done" enough to submit a PR +1
    - This is not explicitly mentioned. The contributor can decide it and the reviewer will approve or add comments. Contributing guidelines say open early and often. Make it explicit in Contribution Guideline. 
        - Capture the workflow in the community handbook.
- Who should fix a broken link if it is urgent (eg, the home page doesn't load)?
    - There's a [get in touch](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way#get-in-touch) section.. We could specify urgent issues.
    - Ideally community manager and infrastructure leads should be doing this. But recently we also discussed that a list of potential reviewers can be added - so people can identify who they can ask for help.
- Who should fix a broken link if it is not urgent?
    - Process for good first issue
- Who resolves differences of opinion between the author of a PR and the reviewer?
    - This sounds like something that officially should be in the remit of the CM as a mediator, but may be very context dependent - Make is explicit in Contribution Guideline. Needs a high level committee to make a final decision on thorny issues. Links to other points around whose opinion is represented above.
- Who merges a PR?
    - Project members - review, assign and approve PR. The name of the section could be changed for better understading? [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md)
    - Make it clear that to merge, author needs to have write permission on GitHub.

3. **Need an out of scope section**
- What is and is **not* appropriate content for the book? Who decides if content is out of scope for TTW?
    - Project members review and approve commits,issues and PR. They can identify NOT appropriate content for the book or raise it for discussion - Make it more clear? [Ways of working section](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/ways_of_working.md). The community monitors and adapts the content of the book and the project members review, guide and approve changes. Note that there are multiple levels at which to approach this question.
- How do we avoid becoming overly broad? What content is appropriate for TTW
- TTW will never be finished - but how do we define when things are out of scope and should not be added to the book? is there a point where we have all the themes or guides that are necessary and we keep building on those?

4. **Write a 'Tools we use' chapter**
- https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/issues/3039
- How do we utilise GitHub?
- - Who decides things in TTW? who do we consult for big changes e.g. Jupyter -- also a huge part of governance work

5. External collaboration chapter
- What an external collaboration with ttw could look like. Very interested to hear how to guide people here, I guess we could use The Practitioners Hub as an example(?) Lots of opportunities here and multifaceted.
    - Notes exist internally to the Turing but need auditing to make more visible for external community members or organisations. Notes are technically available in the reporting folder, but need to be improved. 

5. Update CoC document
- How are conflicts between members resolved?
- Who writes the CoC?
    - It is at the end of the section, however should the [CoC Committee](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) be updated? Points of contact should be updated & training done with core delivery staff
        - CoCc should be set - but also need CoC training budget
- Who makes decisiosn on potential breaches of COC? Who enforces the CoC?
    - Make sure the team members info is clearly stated
    - Remove Ben Murton who is no longer the ombudsperson

6. Update Collaboration Cafe and coworking chapter
- Who can bring a topic to a collaboration cafe? 
    - [Collab Cafe Topic proposals](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/coworking/coworking-collabcafe.html)
- Who can bring a guest to a collaboration cafe?
    - It's a community space open for anyone - so bringing a guest is just literally having a new member joining. 
        - provide a bring a guest checklist
- Who joins coworking on Monday?
    - Update the chapter to state that currently it is used for the Core team

7. Book Dash Chapter
- Who comes to the bookdash?
    - [ Who should apply to join the Book Dash](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash.html)
        - The exceptions from last round did not really work well - we will not make more exceptions.
        - The TPS members should be supported by their line manager in scoping their application - if not written well, will not be invited
            - Involve the committee members in recruiting and onboarding new members
- Who sets the timelines for bookdash?
    - The TTW team has done it so far
        - Will get the committee established first and then help them to set the deadline and documents
- Who designs the structure of the bookdash?
    - A structure already exists. Day to day operations are set, but there is a day lead to ensure that chairs are supported, The Book Dash Committee to also discuss and finalise the social and cntribution format - we have been reusing previous formats that are described in the book.
- What projects get accepted to bookdash? What is the overall objective of the Book Dash?
    - Book Dash committee to review and update the rubrics
- Who approves images (scriberia drafts)?
    - Participants who contribute to the development of images are asked for any improvement they want
    - Update Book Dash chapter: https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash/bookdash-illustrator.html

8. Update presenting about The Turing Way: https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/presenting.html
- Who gives talks about the turing way
    - merge info from the https://hackmd.io/@turingway/demo-intro and https://the-turing-way.start.page/
- Who applies & who is given the opportunity to talk at conferences
    - So far CM applies for most, involves other members by asking in the Slack
    - Provide what other pathways exist
- Who represents TTW at conferences/events in an official capacity
    - Anyone should be able to - we have promotion pack
- retire the promotion pack the promotion pack (archive on GitHub)
- What events/training etc we run
    - We do have most of these written in the Community Handbook for community run events, for submission to other orgs, these are generally either community proposed or Core Staff led
- What talks and event opportunities are available
    - We have an Event document that have been publicised - link to the chapterUpdate the Slack guide - add Slack guide in the Community handbook
- How to get funding to go to a conference
    - We don't have a policy - so far CM looks for resources and communicates with the project leads and the project management team
        - TPS programme management to Create a policy - add to the community handbook - Create a chapter on representing The Turing Way

9. Add Slack guide in the community handbook
- How long is too long to leave a post unasnwered in TTW Slack
    - We have a Slack Guide - not sure if we do need to go in such granualr detail. Ideally CM and other community members keep an eye on the posts.
- slack is a lot - important messages can be lost quickly (many people are in multiple workspaces)
    - Update the Slack guide - add Slack guide in the Community handbook

10. Governance and funding related questions -- for the Core Team and TPS staff to take forward


---


## Agenda

Review together the agenda and agree on priorities and timings.  

:hourglass_flowing_sand: **Timing:** Total 90 min
---

[ Alexandra ]

| Duration | Activity |
| ---- | -------- |
| Start | 👋 Welcome |
| 05 mins | Check in   |
| 30 mins | 1.1 Governance spreadsheet - Highlight priorities and plan next steps |
| 10 mins | 2.0 Key Strategic Decision: 2.1 New Website - Github 
10 mins | 2.4 Reviewing Community Calls
10 min | 3. Fireside Chat 
10 min | 4. Book Dash: remaining tasks and  November Planning
5 mins | Wrap up 

### Format:
* Adheres to TTW Code of Conduct 
* We will keep to time (Ale & Anne will keep us on track!)
* What we don't get done here, we'll move to the next meeting


## 1. Governance (30 min)

- Identify "high" priority tasks and agree on the staff member leading it and the deadline to submit the draft. (20 min) 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gjAtPCgk8Izh-xB1iK56wDOTe2ygHq5NG_-WFEPX-40/edit#gid=1687914303

- 3-Level Decision Making Chart (Ale will prepare a draft for the end of July)
    - Who is in charge
    - Who decides things in TTW? who do we consult for big changes e.g. Jupyter
    - When to change a policy, process, tool (e.g. if we think something new is better)
    - How to participate in decision making / what is appropriate to be fully open and democratic and what isn't - many decisions are very transparent. But difficult to know where to find/be in the room for. 

- Core team - Change to External Advisory board?    
    - Who becomes core
    - What it means to be on the core team
    - How can a regular community member have decision making power? should they?
    - Tied to an organisational chart?

- Working groups (Anne)
    - Develop the structure and general framework needed to have a working group
    - Who is a working group accountable to?
    - How autonomous is a working group
    - Who is in the working groups - Not necessary at this moment

- Relation Between The Turing Institute and The Turing Way (Kirstie)
    - What the Turing Institute pays for
    - Funding available from there
    - The CoC will follow the Turing Institute rules
    - (For next stage): How do we fit TPS members to TTW

- Code of Conduct (Kirstie, by end of July)
    - Who makes decisiosn on potential breaches of COC?
   -  Who enforces the CoC?
   - Malvika suggested changes from this document: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/open-community-building/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

- TTW Fund


SUMMARY OF TASKS/ACTIONS
- Specific Actions/tasks from the spreadsheet: 
    - will be taken by Malvika (upload the summary by 13 July) with support from Alex and Anne
- Relation Between The Turing Institute and The Turing Way (from an insitutional perspective): (Kirstie), first draft will be available by 13 July
- Code of Conduct (Kirstie - nice to have, by the end of July)
- Working groups (Anne): what we currently have, how it is run and a definition/framework for working groups. 
    - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VmoHTZ5P0MfbfB9IZBlHM9SD8V_kE_nUbktC1-w2c7k/edit

## 2.0 Other Key Strategic Decisions

### 2.1 Practitioners Hub Website

[ Alexandra ]

- Agree on the plan: [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/17MSStupgKWtY9E7OqXS2vL-0Orcd3INDb1V2LY4pKtw/edit)

- Kirstie's call with Sophie: 
- Advocacy with comms around who owns TTW
- TTW website can't be too heavily branded for ATI
- Tied to governance discussions -> documentation will help with advocacy

### 2.2 Github independent organisation

[ Alexandra ]

- Is it achievable? We should action it 
- If it is --> 
    - what are the steps? 
            - Involve Infrastructure team asap. Make it clear that they havethe agency to decide the timeframe and community. **(Anne) will make the issue and it will be reinforced in the infrastructure meeting on 13 July**
            - They should be testing - develop a practical planning. 
            - We can start moving some parts that are not part of the book and leave the book till the end
    - when should we have it? Make this happen in parallel and review the process. 
    - what is the right timing to do it? 

NOTES FROM THE DISCUSSION
- Anne will document the reasons behind the decision. She proposed July and August is taken for preparation - and organisating Collaboration Cafes on the process
- Kirstie talked to Martin and she is happy to take the institutional risk.
- It is approved from a TPS decision take
- Working Groups are decision-makers -> CM & PM are facilitating access to other WGs
- Anne will make issue for transition to Github Organisation

- Github: Move to an organisation (has a space in the agenda) 
    - When a piece of work is "done" enough to submit a PR +1
    - Who should fix a broken link if it is urgent (eg, the home page doesn't load)?
    - TPS: Code of conduct, who joins on Monday 


### 2.3 Reviewing Community Calls

[ Anne ]

#### Co-working sessions on Mondays
- Idea 1: No change. TTW staff and volunteers work on ad-hoc tasks for TTW
    - Ongoing issues around attendance, questions about whether one only works on TTW-related tasks, etc.
- Idea 2: TTW Staff WG Coworking. Required for core team staff, and voluntary for voluntary team members.
    - Applicable if membership in WG is mandatory for TTW staff team
- Idea 3: Transitions into TPS Weekly stand-up, mandatory for TPS 

Notes:
- Perhaps shouldn't change until we have addressed governance discussions more broadly within the community? - Delay to Autumn 2023
- Take a more solutions-approach to giving 

#### Collaborations Cafe
- What do we want from the Collaboration Cafe?
- How is this shifting with the Fellows-in-Residence?
- Who should be there?

- Proposed shift: Shift in how introductions and onboarding are done in the pomodoro 
    - **Feedback**: Verbal introductions are great (but too many people), not enough space & scope for onboarding during call, too many people to be effective
    - >= 8 people
        - No verbal introductions - just written check-ins.
        - If you are new (first time at Collab Cafe), raise your hand. Sent to ongoing onboarding/welcome room.
        - If you are invited by TTW member directly, go to their room.
        - Rooms proposed by attendees
    - < 8 people
        - Verbal introductions are possible
        - Same as above
- Proposed shift: Ongoing onboarding/welcome room 
    - **Feedback**: Newcomers would benefit from a separate room for onboarding, without being overwhelmed by the big group
- Proposed shift: Shift pomodoro format for calls, with uninforced & enforced breaks that allow people to join around each 1hr mark.  - IMPLEMENTED
    - **Feedback**: Too much time spent on introductions, enforced breaks interrupts working flow of meetings and groups, people join at hour-mark (Hour #1 or Hour #2), Need to encourage cultural shift of breaks
- Proposed shift: Currently "community chats" take place as ad-hoc events, or in community collaboration cafes. These calls can be split from
    - **Feedback**: It's great to have a discussion in the main room, but I have FOMO. It's too much going on in the call.

Notes:
- No set rules, CM perogative (art of community management!)
- (Anne) Always having an onboarding room open -> who keeps this open?
    - Can someone from TPS (not core delivery team)
    - Rotating rota of people from the T&M group? Asking people who don't have another thing they are bringing to this space
- Should we lean into people bringing guests into the community? (onboarding!)
- Failed previous attends
    - Malvika tried to set up onboarding calls - failed
    - Anne also tried to do Office Hours - also failed
- Collaboration Cafe: previously used to have more time for sharing out
- If the purpose of the Collab Cafe shifts for TPS members, and the 30 minute sharing session starts, 
- Shows an example of the shift between the two communities
- Bring up next time: 
    - tension between TPS & TTW are broader tensions between productivity mindset &  community mindset 
    - Discussion around reserving that last 30 minutes

#### Proposed format
| Time | Activity |
| ---- | -------- |
| 10 mins | Introductions and Needs for Rooms |
| 20 mins | 🍅 1st Pomodoro session |
| 5 mins | ☕️ Break - **not enforced** |
| 20 mins | 🍅 2nd Pomodoro session |
| 10 mins | ☕️ Break - **enforced: 1hr mark** |
| 20 mins | 🍅 3rd Pomodoro session |
| 5 mins | ☕️ Break - **not enforced** |
| 20 mins | 🍅 4th Pomodoro session |
| 5 mins | 👋 Wrap up: celebrations, reflections and future directions |
| 5 mins | 👋 Close |

Other suggestion: 
Should we consider moving the Core Team meetings (from Sept onwards) and Fireside Chats to Thursdays (as Malvika will no longer work on Fridays?)

Next steps:
- CM perogative about format
- Anne will source people to run onboarding room

### 3. Fireside Chat

[ Alexandra & Anne ]

Fireside Chat Series 2023 are here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C-VZvmFL4PnSBsv_G9ZD3dwjIYLno3NyL7oHvbplnWs/edit#gid=513475183

- June: [Sustainability chaired by Alejandro Coca-Castro & Carlos Martinez](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_VaWq51PlsxMhkctkM7fJ8YvQI3qbs5Qgd21Rk7aoUQ/edit#heading=h.hmjj4rapmv7o)
- July: Break
- August: Break 
- September: Practitioner's Hub - EiR speakers
- October: Mantainance [ Anne moving to Oct due to leave in Sept ] 
- November:  BOOK DASH - Closember - No fireside chat
- December: Town Hall (Governance top decision players are there to answer questions)

NOTES:
- Kirstie would like to leave his participation to next year. 
- Who could take on the responsibility of planning the sessions. 

### 4. Book Dash: Planning
- Finish the remaining tasks for May Book Dash.
- Identify the dates for the November Book Dash: **13 to 17 November 2023**
- Review the process of recruiting committee members

NOTES:
- Who is accountable for the Book Dash? Community Manager
- Start the Book Dash planning: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way/issues/3210
- Set up the right committee expectations 
- Update the [Chater draft](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash/bookdash-selection.html) and this one https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash/bookdash-events.html, following Malvika's comments from the evaluation meeting. [Book Dash: Committee Evaluation Meeting](https://hackmd.io/TPwTPzmSRKqvY37mwCiUFA)
- The committee recruitment should be done by mid-July

Book Dash Timeline:
17/07 Committee selected (application process - maybe too late for this time around?)
31/07 Official hubs approved - Hub leads join committee
07/08 Committee kickoff meeting part 1
14/08 Committee kickoff meeting part 2
28/08 Applications open
11/09 Applications close (end of week)
18/09 Application review & tensioning meeting
25/09 Acceptances sent
13/11 BOOK DASH WOOOO!


:::info
**MAY NOT HAVE TIME FOR BELOW: MOVED TO NEXT MEETING **
:::

## 1. The Turing Way Communications

### 1.1 Communications channel
Activities/ Tools we have running:

- Twitter
purpose:
benefits:

- Newsletter (once a month)
purpose:
benefits:

- YouTube
purpose:
benefits:

- Mastodon
purpose:
benefits:

what is the most relevant communications tool TTW has? and why?

- should we consider other platforms? 
- should this be raised with the core team?
- do we have the capacity to explore other options?


### 1.2 The Turing Way talks / conferences

By June 2023 we have participated in as many talks as all 2022. Add report

- Policy to cover expenses?
- Policy to encourage the participation of all team members - feeds into Challenge 2. 



### 1.3 Nominations to apply or waiting for response

Add the list


## 2. Additional Project Tasks:

- Citation records, following a Slack discussion:
https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/index.html#citing-the-turing-way
https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way#citing-the-turing-way
https://theturingway.slack.com/archives/C014KE9A9LM/p1685808541180019x

- Release form: Very relevant for our Fireside Chats and record activities

- https://theturingway.slack.com/archives/C05AL40QZEZ/p1686033787130869So, I think I heard @Malvika Sharan say that our community norm was that the creator of the PR was allowed/encouraged to be the one that hits merge (after review/approval), but who has permission to do that?
I recall inviting the PR-er to merge in the past and them telling me that it looked like they didn't have permission...

