Present: Nick Sellen, Tais Real, Bodhi Neiser, Joachim Thome, fritz holscher, Tilmann, Janina Abels, Douglas Webb, Matthias Larisch, @Lara.

Notary/ies: Douglas Webb, Nick Sellen, Joachim Thome

Location: Heichelheim

Outcomes:

AP: Vaguely try and adopt the spirit of agile into our lives.
Wish: Severely reduce initial launch requirements for a testing group.
AP: Clearly and directly communicate all this stuff clearly and directly. - TR, FH, DW.
AP: Matthias and Tilmann shall sally forth!
AP: Create SysCon regarding launch requirements - DW, JT.

Open Questions:

Do we have key stakeholders?
What are the specifics of the very first-first launch?

[Meeting begins: 11:35]

Questions/Expectations:

Is first launch for communities or for developers?
How does involving international communities influence specification process?
Are we speaking the language? (MVP, Beta, Waterfall, Agile)
What to do if there are very different ideas?
Does a minimal relase undermine the big vision?
How do we communicate with other foodsharing communities about this? (FSINT?)

Minutes

# Are we speaking the same language? (MVP, Beta, Waterfall, Agile) #

DW: Let's start with definitions. Agile is a philosophy, documented in the eponymous manifesto http://www.agilemanifesto.org/ - many methodologies and frameworks can be described as Agile, including Scrum.

ML: Goes on to read out the Principles: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

NS: Can be very used very loosely - many users of the word may not have read the manifesto.

JT: 'Iterative' - do one step, then another, then another Vs. 'Planned' (waterfall)

TB: 'Waterfall', like waterfall flowing downhill that can't be stopped or changed until release.

FH: Who uses Agile?

DW: Everyone - Microsoft even - waterfall on the way out. Waterfall can work well for high predictability system, like building roads, etc.

TB: Waterfall will not completely die - good for things like cars and rockets.

ML: There is also the 'V' model - a halfway step between agile and waterfall. Specification driven. (good explanation first answer at http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/228282/can-someone-explain-the-v-model-process-why-is-it-different-than-the-waterfall)

TB: Specification the big difference: Waterfall doesn't start without it, Agile doesn't use it.

TB: 'MVP' - Minimal Viable Product. Big change in definition since Malo. Most quick thing to build that we can put out into the world to show people. Coming from business, where venture capitalists needs to secure more capital in future. For us, it's a compromize between what we want to do and what we can do.

JT: From my limited experience, an MVP can be really an experiment that not everyone sees.

ML: We defined the MVP as a software that could allow the current foodsharing.de to fully migrate.

NS: From my experience - I introduced the term - it's the smallest thing that people can use. Example; imlplement basic pick-up function; enthusiasm - build it, meh - ditch it.

DW: The 'everything' version was meant to be done by the end of Malo!

BN: Raphael tried to do the maths that with 10 Raphi's, we'd be done.

JT: We can use whatever terms we want internally, but if we want to network with the rest-of-world we should use universally understood terms.

(MVP from wikipedia: "In product development, the minimum viable product (MVP) is a product which has just enough features to gather validated learning about the product and its continued development.", "The product is typically deployed to a subset of possible customers, such as early adopters that are thought to be more forgiving, more likely to give feedback, and able to grasp a product vision from an early prototype or marketing information.")

NS: Worked for 3 months in a hip working space in California. Not perfect, a lot I didn't like - but get's product released on a tiny budget that people love. Want to bring this in. Pivot: MVP fails → New, different MVP (Uses example of drug user searching for vein)

JT: We have users with minimal expectations! Everyone at this table. We can start now! (much enthusiasm)

TB: Beta: Testing version

NS: Gmail was 'beta' for years - companies can use it just to deflect complaints about bugs.

TB: Websites use 'beta' to indicate changes are imminent.

NS: I think 'beta' is very vague and confusing.

ML: I think something is 'beta' until it's had a lot of testing. We could tag individual features as beta. Agree that it's vague.

TB: 'beta' can indicate that just bug features need to be done. 'alpha' can indicate that there are more features to come.

JT: With games, they had to be perfect before burned onto a cd. Now they can be relesed before this.

# Does a minimal release undermine the big vision? #

JT: No. (No resistance)

# Specification, versioning, etc #

DW: Let's launch sooner than later: for morale, for informed decision going forward, for life. Numerical 'versions' over named 'specifications'.

FH: Can be very demotivating to have massive expectations. I believe that more minimal launch requirements are necessary for the project flow and we can make a proposal now.

JT: Scrum is not planless. You can have a plan in Scrum. Testing group: they need to know clearly that it is not the final version - vast changes could occur. Complete awareness that is chaotic and there feedback is very useful.

TR: Answers question 'How do we contact communities that want to help'. We can select from the large number of enthusiastic people.

FH: What do you see as the new 'MVP'

DW: Small technical jump between foodsharing and itemsharing, much less than jump between foodsharing and foodsaving.

BN: Would focus on Foodsharing, as everyone is managing to do Foodsaving with facebook groups atm.

JT: Nothing should stop people releasing to a test group from doing so.

JA: Integration of new developers perhaps not at this point.

ML: New developers much more likely to join with something on the ground.

TB: Focus is much easier if we can just go. Motivation and morale stays up much better too.

JT: For me, this is the point of Scrum.

TR: Just want to be a bit careful before releasing to communities. Important to clearly present findings to people.

ML: Let's not mix everything. I never said two weeks. We don't need to have a community using the thing we release immediately.

# Different idea #

JT: We have systemic consensus.

JA: We need to communicate cleary - I believe we are on the same page.

NS: Easy to hypothesize other peoples arguementation, hard to know. We may suffer from group-think, not fully agreeing on details.

JT: Group-think: guessing what others are thinking. Recommend that if you have certain individuals in mind, name them.

NS: Have a voice call with Raphael, Monika and Holger.

FH: We should not worry about the responses to what we have to say. This is a fundamental point.

NS: Let's put people over processes.

FH: We shouldn't expect responses.

JT: Separate fears and expectation from intelligent goal of working together.

FH: I might value some peoples opinion more than others - this is a personal decision.

NS: When I talk about talking to others, I don't think about authority, just pragmatic outcomes. I see investment and want to build coalition. From my experience - at the other side of things - I would like to have specifically known about some conversations that I wasn't notified about. It's nice to be nice. Orthogonal to hierarchy.

JT: Niceness and politeness vs honesty. Really prefer honesty every time. Some people dare to take decisions and positional power?. Raphael has power to the outside because of his pr work and network. [Dishwasher falls - chaos!]. We are challenging the pattern of deciding in small groups for others on the outside and in ourselfes.

DW: I believe we are touching on personal beliefs/world-view that we don't need to have consensus on in order to work together. Would like to wrap this up soon.

JA: Would like to discuss this in more detail later. Do not believe you have to compromize niceness for honesty. Thoughts about tone.

JT: It is not about having one (niceness) or the other (honesty) but about prioritizing them.What is more important for you?

FH: Good topics for a deeper chat later. Work on presenting outcomes.

[Meeting Ends: 13:30]

NB: continued from 2016-06-09 - Foodsharing.de and MVP