# Skills session Friday AM

[(ref: Thursday PM HackMD)](https://hackmd.io/8ND1NL3xSvyRqhgpUfCa_g)

## Andy:

- formallise that we don't all have the same skills
- better articulation of what our software skills
- matching skills to projects?
- expectations of collaborators - how much do we let external

## Ed:
- Would a foundational set of skills be a valuable reference point?
- Not as a required skills set, but as a guide to continued development to be picked up during 22 days, or perhaps in a more formal process during time between projects.
- Comments on the [Skills Roadmap rfc](https://hackmd.io/8ND1NL3xSvyRqhgpUfCa_g#RFC-Skills-Roadmaps) written by the previous group:
- Could measurable objectives be introduced at the roadmap node level so that progress could be tracked and more easily discussed eg. with line managers/ peers.
- The intention would not be to make completion of the roadmap a requirement for progression or probabtion completion, but to offer a guide for learners indication when to move on to another node of the roadmap.

## Gabriel
- How can we ensure that people who will be allocated to the future missions have (or get) the necessary skills to be successful in those missions?
- How can we ensure that someone working in a mission can pick up new skills they are interested in, even if these are not relevant for the mission?
- Can the new starters be given the chance to fully participate in the REG RDS course to ensure they have all the basic sskillset expected of them?
- Would it be possible to develop new skills in the new missions, even if these are not necessarily alligned with the mission's goals? Could the 22 days be used for this, even in this new mission-based world, or will this be at the discrestion of the mission lead?
- Carrer progression is not necessarily synchronized with skills development. Some people may want to develop skills they are interested in more than focus on the competencies necessary for their career progression. Can this be ensured in the mission-driven context?
- What would be the most important thing that needs to happen to ensure I'm still happy in terms of skills progression in the new mission-driven Turing 2.0 (as opposed to today, when we have full freedom to pick the skills we want to develop)?

## Jon

- Suppose we have a list of 'useful' or 'core skills' (perhaps those in [competencies framework](https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/Hut23/blob/master/development/competencies.md))
- where do we learn this from?
- how do we make sure it's not too overwhelming?
- could we (as a team) put together resources on these topics?
- if so, can this become a (force-multiplier?) project in and of itself?

- is 22 days' time really enough to do something like a MOOC (or even several) within a reasonable timeframe? need to avoid feeling pressured to do it in your own time

## Levan

Question: what would need to happen skills-wise after Turing 2.0 transition, such that I would still be happy. Or, what would make me un-happy if it were not to happen?

- Have time to calmly and steadily acquire skills narrowly necessary to the project I am on.
- Have a general understanding in the team, that people might need substantial time to learn some new skill, and that comes out of the project time.
- Have some channel (e.g. 22 days?) to also learn something other than narrowly project-relevant skills, so we can tap into wider expertize at Turing. This is crucial to allow people to be able to later switch fields or methods, by having some way to start acquiring basic knowledge in some new area.

## Ese

Must have for skills in Turing 2.0

- Keep the generalist approach but laced with some level of specialisation. This is likely to happen given the structure of mission-based approach in Turing 2.0.
- Have some time to explore personal interest/project.