One aspect of the ArchCom Planning meeting is collaborative writing on a weekly update note. I've liked the concept of keeping everyone updated, but felt like we don't have a process likely to create a high-quality update. Is this something ArchCom should keep producing? If so, how should we do it?
Topic on Talk:Wikimedia Technical Committee/Processes
I don't know about the process, but I always check these emails carefully. Without these updates I would not remember to check to see what's going on, and I do find them quite helpful.
I find them great.
@Jdforrester (WMF) and @ArielGlenn: thanks for weighing in! I may approach each of you to interview you more about what it is you appreciate about them.
I'm thinking about creating a page (e.g. Architecture committee/Status) that we ask each ArchCom member to update asynchronously outside of the meeting, then use the ArchCom Planning meeting to discuss the status (and flag cases where an update hasn't been done). My understanding is that this technique wouldn't be a first.
I dislike using the short time we have everyone together as "editing time" rather than "discussion time". Given the timezones involved, it's not easy finding a time for the whole committee to meet. We should respect our colleagues and do the editing we need to do outside of the meeting.
I'd like to emphasize the "need to do" part. What aspects do we need to do to communicate the information you find useful?
I find the emails very useful (much like the SoS notes), as reminders for "what is being thought about or worked on, at a big-picture level, or in teams that I'm not keeping close track of".
Architecture committee/Status is where ArchCom is trying this process out, and have this week's status available.