# Contributor Summit Seattle 2018 - Retrospective

# Summary

Project Team: parispittman, castrojo, Bob Killen, megan, guin, Nancy Mohamed, jeefy, Megan Lehn, tpepper 
Date:  2018-12-10
Authors: @parispittman and @mrbobbytables
   
# Project Overview

Continue on our contributor summit event journey to Seattle to bring contributors together for face to face conversations, fun, learning, and planning. 

# Key Accomplishments [3-5 mins]

*   Overall highly [verbal] praised by attendees for being the best Contributor Summit yet.
*   Succeeded on getting the “right people in the room”. 
*   Recording of all the things
*   Extended the event into 1.5 days
*   Had content for everyone
*   Implementation of room facilitators
*   Attendance estimates were spot on with 89% attendance for RSVP’ed Current Contributors.
    *   Current Contributor: 89% (227/254)
    *   New Contributor: 68% (75/110)
    *   Total: 83% (302/364)


# Lessons Learned 

_What went well?  Why? [10-15 mins]_

**Current Contributor + New Contributor:**

*   **General:**
    *   Bob+Paris+Sahdev: All sessions recorded was highly praised. Considered one of the biggest ‘wins’ for the event.
    *   Bob+Paris+Sahdev: Meals and snack quality was better than normal ‘conference’ fare and appreciated. 
        *   Paris: I liked the soup option for Seattle weather
    *   Paris: Our day of staff was on point. Everyone was super helpful and most attendees I spoke with said that they helped with reducing the chaos by being a point person that we need. 
    *   Paris: the design of the signs was nice and ultimately the sched heading, etc. 
    *   Sahdev: SIG Meet & Greet was good idea, though agree on space and time problem like not started on time and not enough time, and I found it useful to continue in future. I believe every participating SIG had at least 2-5 new contributors showed up, if not many.
*   **Sched:**
    *   Bob+Paris+Megan: Easy to manage and quickly update.
    *   Bob: Spreadsheet import made initial seeding of events very easy.
    *   Bob: Find ‘duplicates’ feature worked quite well.
    *   Paris+Yang+Nancy: Sched was pretty and allowed for a good attendee experience
*   **Swag:**
    *   Bob+Paris+Lindsey+Yang+Jeff: Pre-labeling and packaging swag bags worked incredibly well and streamlined ‘reg’ workflow. Attendees appreciated sorting by GitHub handle as it made it much quicker for them to find their bag.
    *   Bob+Paris+Jeff: Kubernetes stamp looked good, is easily reusable and made the swag bag assembly line easy.
        *   CNCF can handle this execution in the future, leaving the community to design
    *   Bob+Paris+Lindsey+Yang+Jeff: Shirts were highly praised. Many positive comments were made both about quality of shirt and design. 
        *   Paris: gender minorities personally commented that it was more true to size than any other tech shirt they have
        *   Tpepper: a dollar or two additional per shirt goes a long way in perception and the recipient feeling valued by the giver
    *   Bob+Paris+Jeff: Stickers were well liked and there is a demand for more.  These are smaller, lower cost, but high value by recipient.
*   **Contributor Celebration:**
    *   Bob+Paris+Yang+Jeff: Contributor Celebration at the Garage was well received. 
    *   Bob+Paris+Yang: Diversity of food and activities was appreciated. 
        *   Paris: we can do better with vegetarians and the like - folks mentioned they want more than just grilled veggies at conferences (Josh (Veg): there was pizza and bruchetta that were veggie.  Seems proportional, it's more that there wasn't really a full meal for anyone)
    *   Bob+Yang+Jeff: Beyond initial rush, reg workflow went smoothly.
    *   Bob+Paris+Jeff: On-site KubeCon registration was appreciated.
    *   Josh: good distance away, not too far to walk, but far enough to avoid non-contribs showing up.
    *   Tim: Quiet area upstairs was a +10000.  Future venue selection if possible having major party space but also a bit of a chill space is a welcome thing. 
*   **Registration:**
    *   Bob+Paris+Jeff: Very good stats on who attended, when they attended etc. Can be used in the future. 

*   **Current Contributor:**

*   Bob: [verbal] Session content was well received. 
    *   Paris: I’d like to see feedback before making this a point
*   Bob: [verbal] Session facilitators kept sessions on track. 
    *   Paris: I’d like to see feedback before making this a point

*   **New Contributor Workshop**
    *   Paris: Everyone came prepared to work at the ncw.
    *   Tim pep - maybe 10% didn’t have cla and things done but that’s a good ratio

_What went wrong?  Why? [10-15 mins]_

**Contributor Celebration:**



*   Bob: Significantly less people attended than RSVP’ed. However this was likely caused by the weather issues on the east coast diverting and delaying 500+ flights.
*   Paris: Never got the cue balls in time even though they were delivered on time. The one branding moment and we missed it. 
    *   Bob: From general comments, it sounded like many of the co-located events had things go missing at convention center, for things like this it may be better to ship to hotel or nearby place (Google/Heptio Office)
    *   Josh: I know from the show floor that something like ¼ of all deliveries went astray.  The WSCC contractors were *really* incompetent.  Also, UPS/USPS deliveries were slow because Christmas.
*   Paris: Signs. Couldn’t hang them anywhere and couldn’t put them outside due to weather. We had zero branding inside of the party. 
*   Jorge: AV system should have been tested beforehand.
*   Sahdev: Minor but the address per Uber was on the back end of the location, that required some walk in the rain. Not sure how many people ran into it. 

**Current Contributor + New Contributor:**



*   **Registration:**
    *   Tpepper+Paris+Bob : Split registration between downstairs conference and upstairs contrib summit was awkward.  Ribbons to identify track participants is suboptimal, as had to really get up close on the participant to verify the badge.
        *   Paris: can the badge and/or lanyard be notably different for contrib summit attendees, possibly also differentiated between new contrib and current contrib
        *   Jorge: wants to be able to trivially from a distance visually scan a queue of people and catch the folks who’ve ended up in the wrong place and help them get to the appropriate place
    *   Sahdev: It was difficult to approach folks without Ribbon. 
*   **Swag:**
    *   Paris: 3rd event where we didn’t have enough shirts. How is this still a problem? Drew said we can submit shirt sizes to him 5 days before the event. We will do this next time and lock reg when we do. 
        *   Bob: There was an inventory issues with straight small, the max (30) were ordered
        *   Megan: Did we run out of shirts? We had a few boxes left that I sent with Bob to the Google Offices. 
            *   Jorge: They were the wrong sizes. 
*   **Venue:**
    *   Paris: we didn’t get what we asked for - hopefully fourth time is a charm?
    *   Paris+Nancy: we had no one onsite to help us with problems. We ended up turning off TVs and doing a bunch of stuff DIY because of it. 
    *   Paris+Yang+Nancy: We didn’t know the TVs outside of the rooms on the walls were options for us to display materials 
        *   Yang: this could be useful
    *   Paris+Yang: We said that the lobby would be an issue with registration flow and our concerns went unaddressed. 
        *   Yang: a little bit chaos with swag express line because of the tables there
    *   Bob+Paris+Yang: The shared space with other co-located events resulted in multiple problems: 
        *   Attempts by General Attendees to get into Contributor Summit sessions.
        *   General Attendees taking food reserved for Contributor Summit Attendees.
        *   General Attendees thinking Contributor Summit Swag was free.
        *   Swag being walked off with. 
            *   Paris: this was extremely rude
            *   Tpepper: this wasn’t a specific contributor to shirt shortage (ie: that was sizing mostly), but people _really_ want these shirts as they semi-collectible and everybody wants them
    *   Bob: Not enough space in meet and greet room. Room wound up going unused.
        *   Paris: room was intended to be overflow from the main ncw room; half were supposed to go in there and the other half was supposed to stay. Clearly we had some communication issues with this.
        *   Tpepper: SIG Meet & Greet is a new addition this time, need to work on refining it for new contributor benefit.
    *   Bob+Paris: Sound check for lightning talks was disruptive for 605/610 
    *   Paris: Felt super rushed with preparing room layouts and room things months ago when we could have focused on content upfront. Didn’t care for defending our rooms and saving them from being taken for colo events. Felt like we were the ones that are just an expense and not a big money maker for CNCF. 
    *   Tpepper / NCW: Could use two screens and two independent displays.  Had this in China for english and chinese parallel display, and then also used one for demo work while also having static content visible.  Would’ve been useful this time to have demo and static content in parallel.
*   **Communication:**
    *   Bob+Jeff+Nancy: Few used the [social media tag](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23k8scontribsummit). 
        *   Paris:  it was just too long and boring. We should make custom ones per event and start making up words.  And need to do this earlier so we have more time to have it consistently visible all around.
        *   Lindsey: I didn’t even know there was a social media tag! I just noticed it in the signage now that you mentioned it. I don’t think I had time to tweet during contributor’s summit tbh and I would probably need to be reminded to use a hashtag for contributor’s summit unless it was in my face at everything I looked at. Was it explicitly referenced/posted on slides at the opening remarks?
            *   Paris: yes, it was on the slides in the beginning. I think most folks aren’t big tweeters in this crew. 
        *   Sahdev: I did use the tag, I guess I was the top user :-). As Paris said, seems like not many tweet from this crew. 
    *   **Signage and Branding:**
        *   Paris: **** I didn’t hear anything about signage mentioned on any standup where we presented what we were working on relating to signage - requirements, what we can and can’t hang, etc. We spent 5k on signage that we never used. Fourth times a charm here?
            *   Bob: The only thing I recall was the specifics of the 1 room that we could hang things on the smalls.
            *   Nancy: don’t use USB on screens, there’s a site backend to which you can upload images and manage them.  We weren’t connected into it.
            *   Vanessa / Megan: the text based TV content is accessible, but also had been told the plug-in-a-USB route so surprised it didn’t work well.  Can try to do a single short bit of text on the room TV screen so it shows large and more obvious.
        *   Bob+Paris+Lindsey: Not enough signage. Lots of confusion at reg/swag table regarding event and location of sessions. 
            *   Paris - we need three times the amount of signage as any other colo event. I’ve said this the past 3 retros.  Josh: I didn't have any trouble finding things, but maybe that's just me.
            *   Tpepper - we doubled the attending humans relative to Copenhagen, meant more chaos in the 6 floor space, more confusion, leads to needing much more signage
        *   Bob: Signage errors had to be corrected at last minute. 
            *   Paris - content needs to be locked two weeks before the event.
            *   Bob - scrutinize our intended content more, especially an outside reviewer pair of eyes as we’re too close to it and miss otherwise bvious things.
            *   Megan: different sizes of reader boards, can have more and bigger.  Less text (eg: just “SIG Foo” instead of the day’s full schedule on the 20” screen outside a room) is more visible.

**Current Contributor:**

*   Bob+Paris+Jeff: Not enough microphones to adequately support unconference sessions in rooms. 
    *   Paris - AV person in the main track room 608/609 was rude and had a major attitude.
    *   Yang: AV person of sessions at 608/609 after 2pm seems OK
    *   Jeff: Especially as things were recorded, having fewer microphones caused some conversations to flow poorly as mics were passed across the room.
    *   Tpepper: room moderators need to actively dance around the room and require folks to talk in the mic...this is part of their role.  Some did it well.
    *   Bob: Shout boxes would be GREAT for BoFs etc.  Pass the batton
    *   Tpepper / Vanessa: can we get push-to-talk system for smaller round table sessions 
*   Bob+Paris: Multiple sig leads did not bother to register and just ‘showed’ up. 
*   Jorge: People stepping out and handing their “slot” to someone else who we might not have known/vetted/checked.
*   Paris: Multiple people just showed up and flashed that they know CNCF folks (Chris A and Dan most notably). This was the rudest thing that has ever happened to me at an event and I considered filing multiple code of conduct issues on these folks for wildly unprofessional behavior. Jenny from cncf sent multiple emails telling people they can just show up or come to the event. I’d like an apology from the cncf staff to our staff. This caused multiple rounds of chaos and I’d like to never relive this ever again. 
    *   Bob: re:Jenny, I think they were ‘okayed’ for a separate co-located event and thought the Contributor Summit was it.
    *   Examples: [1] Folks were rude at Garage’s front door who are not current contributors but because they are from an industry company, acted like they should have red carpet service. Wouldn’t move aside when asked, put their badges in my face. Show emails from a [jenny@cncf.io](mailto:jenny@cncf.io) saying that Chris A said they could come. [2] someone at a contributing/member company that does not contribute individually told our staff that they knew people even though reg staff said it was sold out and continued to walk in and around. I asked them to leave and they showed up again the next day and sat in sessions. I’ve never had folks be that rude to me to my face at an event before. It’s a sold out event - at least email us. We build in room on purpose so that we didn’t fill it up as previous events complained about the amount of folks in the room. Don’t just show up because you know Chris A. This is a contributor experience event - not CNCF. We have many, many other examples of this. 
        *   Bob: re:puppet - The person’s event coordinator was in contact and informed of event specifics, they showed up anyway after decline.
        *   Paris / Tpepper - do a reg team CoC enforcement training. Aaron - “how and why to say no without being passive aggressive”
        *   Bob - add in registration sign off on CoC agreement
        *   Vanessa - CoC sign off was present in registration also for colocated event
        *   Tim / Jorge - if some one person’s getting the brunt of people trying to get in through the door, the rest of us need to step in and assist.  It can’t be one person being the bad cop.
*   Josh: attendees did not know about the Sched for the summit and it wasn't obvious how to pull it up once you were there.  That sched needed to be on signs.  More visibility to online links and messaging.
*   Jorge: Unconference voting needs to not be in a room, next time let’s get a rolling-whiteboard, more visibility to links online to propose/vote

**New Contributor:**

*   Tpepper / jberkus - were splitting time between it and current contributor.  Things felt relatively smooth and in line with our refinements from Copenhagen and Shanghai in 2018
*   Guin - need her feedback for overarching view
*   Action todo: have a short 15 minute retro on NCW content and flow

_What processes did not work well?  Why?_

**Registration:**

*   Bob+Paris: Registration on KubeCon event page caused multiple problems and confusion. Many non-contributors signed up because it was a ‘free’ event. The follow-up RSVP process to select track / send follow-up email did not solicit enough responses from the intended attendee audience.
*   Bob+Paris: Google form ‘stop gap’ solution worked okay, however many people did not actually read the form and just signed up for things they shouldn’t have. 
    *   Bob: EventBrite + Sched completely separate would make this smoother, but conflicts with CNCF / conference core
    *   Vanessa: RegOnline moving to “[cvent](https://www.cvent.com/)” system in 2019.  Can do unique registration codes based on individual email address.
*   Bob+Paris: Google form was not accessible to Chinese contributors.  Bob manually entered them if they reached out.
    *   Vaness+Bob: surveymonkey?  It is somehow explicitly blocked for some people.
        *   Bob: Surveymonkey had a message along the lines of: spam blocked, I believe people can explicitly block ALL messages of surveymonkey.
*   Bob+Paris: Lack of portal for attendees to check their ‘status’, if accepted, waitlisted etc lead to much confusion, both before the contributor summit and during regarding registration. 
    *   Lindsey: Confirmation emails for this and other Kubecon events like the diversity lunch, empowerHer social event, really anything that is not Kubecon itself, would be greatly appreciated by everyone I think!
    *   All: don’t build our own!
    *   Jorge: infra folks say our project DNS should be better next time around so it’s easy to do something like summit.k8s.io

**Communication:**

*   Bob+Paris+Lindsey: Multiple notification e-mails wound up in spam boxes. Attendees were unaware if they were accepted or had to follow-up on an action.
    *   Paris: official k8s project GSuite hopefully coming, so there’s a clear From: that is well known and whitelistable
*   Bob+Paris+Yang: Attendees were not aware of sched.
    *   Lindsey: I had sched downloaded for the contributor’s summit when it was posted in #sig-contribex and even I forgot about sched. Was this mentioned in opening remarks or could it be next time? -paris: it was mentioned in the opening remarks, slack channel, and github page
    *   Nancy: the sched link was on every sign as well.
    *   Yang: sched came late, I have to tell some folks where is the link
*   Bob+Paris+Lindsey+Yang: Managing the schedule in GitHub. It was not friendly for managing event info/schedule.
*   Paris+Jeff+Bob+Yang: We didn’t communicate enough. 
    *   Jeff: and we need to decide/create an effective communication strategy so… people actually read.
    *   Bob: Agree, one big take-away was our general messages should be shorter and to the point. Provide link for more info if needed
    *   Tpepper: weekly “Need To Know” short list of key action items heading up to the event

# Future Considerations [20 mins]

_Suggestions for next time_

*   Bob: New Contributor Workshop (NCW) should be its **own** event. It will relieve both registration burden and prevent NCW attendees from drifting over to Current Contributor sessions. 
    *   Paris: I disagree with this; if we reduce the chaos in other areas, most notably registration, and had our own area - this won’t be a problem and may be encouraged for folks who don’t need explanations of those sections in ncw and can catch a current contributor session (Josh +1)
    *   Tpepper: I agree on it being a problem for _us_ splitting our volunteering efforts (need to grow organizing team running things for sure), but also disagree.  It’s useful to be able to pull in current contributors to present at NCW.  The new contributors feel more valued being co-located, even if almost entirely a parallel track.  They also get value from the pre- and post-event talks, like the steering committee panel.  And then get something intangible in the graduation in the big room with everybody.
    *   Bob: Agree after hearing explanation. 
*   Bob+Paris: Move to invite only for Current Contributor. This will require clearly outlining the audience and how to get an invite, but it should help resolve multiple issues:
    *   Eliminate ‘why can’t I attend the Current Contributor track?’ questions from people who signed up and were not actual contributors.
    *   On-site staff burden will be significantly less. In an invite only event, doors do not need to be watched and much less ‘policing’ and managing of swag/reg is required.
    *   Invite-only will require existing leads/TLs to come to us ahead of time instead of showing up on the spot. 
        *   Paris: will need to work with steering committee on the threshold for an invite. They will most likely say voters and if that's the case we are looking at inviting 700 people. How will we manage this?
            *    Lindsey - Is this a concern around an explicit invite creating more demand to attend the contributor’s summit? I don’t have as much understanding of the situation but, at present, can’t anyone who’s signed the CLA try to register? Probably not all 700 voters would be able to attend any given kubecon but contributors could still be subject to a first come first served stipulation--or invites only sent to contributor’s who have registered for kubecon while capacity for contributor’s summit not reached
            *   Bob: I think it’d be voters would be ‘approved’ to come. They would still need to RSVP by a hard lock-down date (shirts, food, scheduling etc). It just wouldn’t be a “public” invite.
            *   Jorge - continue to leverage the SIG leads so they can loop in their up and coming folks who they’re trying to build up to the next level.  They were very helpful in vetting prospective attendees.
            *   Jorge - try to bias some attendance towards past NCW participants who have actually followed through and are ramping their contributions, so we are building the pipeline
*   Bob: General in person feedback is supportive of two days for the Current Contributor Summit. Two possible ideas:
    *   2 days Current Contributor | NCW / co-located events | KubeCon
        *   Paris: if we put ncw on the second day, then they will miss things like technical vision and we won’t get many people on the sig meet and greet.
        *   Lindsey:  just to note, diversity scholarship recipients are only able to claim expenses for 4 overnight stays pertaining to kubecon/colocated events. Some contributing diversity scholars--particularly those coming from the Global South, would be most negatively affected by this as they will have to decide to pay extra out of pocket expenses or skip days of actual Kubecon. In either case, obviously not ideal.  [Josh: seems like a reason to raise more money for diversity scholarships.]
        *   Tim: heard some “wow that was great wish it was 2 days” usually followed by “oh but then the conference is how many days in total?”
        *   Jeff: Sunday full day would mean more ability to swap staff so they can also attend more
        *   Paris: Sunday can’t be a work day
        *   Vanessa: San Diego is Tue/Wed/Thurs (ie: we’re still constrained to Monday summit with Sunday prep?)
        *   Paris: we only hit a minority of the requested content.  What about leads/chair training?  Other maintainer focused content.
        *   Jorge+Tim+Bob+Paris: why isn’t more of this content in the main conference?  Need more coordination between maintainer track and other tracks.  Maintainer track needs a formal track chair, uniformity in presentations and levelling of info, removal of sales pitches.  BryanL and JanetK are the co-chairs and have led this, are likely open to collaborating on improvement.  DanK encourages us to work with track chairs in 2019 to up the curation of the maintainer focused content in the main coverence.
    *   Separate event entirely.
*   Bob+Paris+Nancy: Registration and schedule process should be streamlined.  Example: Eventbrite and sched. Attendees should be able to check their own status and provide a good single point of truth for the event.
    *   Paris: 100% on using better tools
    *   Lindsey: ones that email succinct, appropriately frequent reminders of all the things: registration status, hashtags, sched, social events, etc
    *   Jorge: Let’s ditch the google calendar and just do sched 100% from the getgo.
    *   DanK: single reg, comp conference ticket if they weren’t otherwise attending
*   Bob+Lindsey: Official communications should come from a single account that the community can whitelist. This should help to eliminate the problems encountered with messages being flagged as spam and easier for attendees to search their own mail for official communications. 
    *   Paris: we are putting in a gsuite proposal. We need a back up solution if this gets denied.
*   Bob: Use shorter more concise language in communication to attendees.
*   Bob+Paris+Lindsey+Nancy+Megan: Dedicated website at easy URL for event information -- could potentially be tied in with registration/scheduling site.
    *   Paris: this is mandatory. We won’t proceed with another event without it.
    *   Jorge: Something like summit.k8s.io
*   Bob: Along with dedicated site, make social media (twitter/twitter hashtag) more prominent.
*   Bob+Paris+Lindsey: Stickers or labels for sigs/wg. Would be a fun thing to place on badges.
    *   Jorge: sig leads did some of this at their tables, make more ahead of time
    *   Bob: not just “green” sticker for talk to me, but green + SIG name..talk to me about SIG Foo
*   Bob+Paris: Food ingredients list made available for those with allergies. 
    *   Paris: if we were to display the food ahead of time - this will also help.
*   Bob: Possibility of longer unconference sessions. There were a few topics that could have greatly benefited from more time.
*   Bob+Paris: Note for facilitators / speakers: Instruct speakers how to speak into a mic.
    *   Paris - more focus on training these folks, get their decks ahead of time, etc.
*   Paris: A dedicated CNCF events manager that isn’t working on other events. They can also help us with various upstream events throughout the year. 
*   Paris: A venue that is outside of the main convention center area but close enough to walk. 
    *   Dan: If it is co-located with KubeCon, we will arrange for it to be in a nearby hotel so that it can control the space.
*   Paris: Our volunteers that aren’t paid from clouds to be paid for day of ops at the very least
    *   Lindsey: that’d be nice--perhaps we could then reach out to diversity scholars to help out with volunteering since they may otherwise be paying out of pocket for an extra day of accommodation to attend contributor’s summit. That could help to offset their costs
        *   Dan: Could be seen as a negative, they should not be asked to “work” for it.
    *   Dan: CNCF covers travel cost of diversity scholars attending pre-events.
*   Paris: Other paid event staff to stand at doors, check badges, etc. 
    *   Tpepper: we need to have a brief into the conference core for venue staff so they know the day of / sub-event specific details.  They are present and doing it, but also need the event specific variation to be prominently visible so they can gatekeep.
    *   Dan: If on badge, needs to be prominent.
*   Paris+Lindsey: Staff shirts or some other identifiable branding [Josh: this is also a nice incentive to volunteer.  Let's design a custom tshirt which is *only* available to volunteers.  Or a hat.]
*   Paris: Create a GitHub project board for Contributor Summits, also labels, and have all issues and tasks flow through there. Eliminate the need for spreadsheets except registration. 
*   Paris: Figure out how to collect demographic information next time, specifically gender
    *   Lindsey: and country attending from, race--all anonymous optional categories if possible
*   Paris: Post shirt sizes/measurements/brand information with the registration form.
*   Paris: formal doc around contributor summit awards from contributor experience
    *   Paris to take this as an AI
*   Jorge: Move swag into the actual rooms people will be in to avoid randos swiping them. We could have put the swag for current workshop in the dev lounge so people can vote + swag up, and had the NCW baggies in their own room. 
*   Jorge: Assign staff based on registration. So if someone’s a “maybe” and they get in, they get assigned staff to work their way through the event. 
    *   Bob: follow-up on people who did not actually follow-through
*   Jorge: Backup staff from our coworkers. I can commit to 2 vmware people per event, this will help backstop when people inevitably unvolunteer themselves. The companies that care will also step up accordingly. 
    *   Bob: to be clear, you’re saying voluntell people to volunteer?  → Yes.
*   Dan: CNCF will be dedicating a (near) full-time staff member to support this event.
*   Dan: Attempt to make a clear distinction between design and production of different elements of the event. Design (for example of signage) should be responsibility of ContribEx, although you can call on CNCF graphic designers for help. Production (printing of signage) should be a CNCF function.
    *   paris: I’d like to cover the responsibilities of the parties in our January call with the budget information.
*   Josh: Print "posters" (11x17 signs) with the day's schedule and tape them up for folks to find around.  Also put links to sched on these.
    *   Tpepper: venue has complicated rules on sticking things to the venue
    *   somebody(Bob?):  print a single sheet “schedule at a glance”, stuff it in everybody’s bag
*   Jorge: Offsite Youtube admin for the event so we can get the videos up ASAP. 
*   Jorge: Organizers should have NO speaking commitments for that day. 
    *   Jeffrey: splitting of roles/responsibilities, separation of duties alleviates stress, gives more single source of info on spot checking and giving answers, less running around and more focus between organizing and presenting
*   Jorge: We need “STAFF” or something on our badge so the security people can let us in to do our jobs on offhours, day before, etc.
    *   Megan: next time we’ll be split off so there will be less gatekeepers and less friction, but can have it more clear and whatever is the designation communicated to venue staff so they know.


# ACTION ITEMS:

Who is taking what? Insert here.

[your name] - action

[paris] - contributor experience awards

[paris] - figure out better standups; schedule and possibly break up planning vs content curation from meetings

[your name] - have a social media coordinator type of role; put social tag on the very first comm out

[your name] - someone to review signage (design and logistics) that isn’t on the core team

[your name] - add AV requirements to the transparency role; board meeting type set up? Multiple mics? 

[your name] - email to sig leads about contributor summit behavior - please register next time

[paris] - set up a quick 15 min retro for NCW

[name] - website