Build Meeting - 2009-05-21

From FGVwiki

Jump to: navigation, search

2009-05-21 Build Minutes

  • Minutes: Alec
  • Present: CL, Mitchell W 938?, Steven M 653, David H 908, David F 751, Cecilia V 638, Alec S 240, Stephen S (Late), Christine (Late)

Agenda

  • No agenda. Agreed points for discussion:
    • 1. Status of build program & changes implemented recently
    • 2. Feedback from those involved

Minutes

  • Alec S and David F are doing build instruction (Thurs and Weds, Thurs respectively).
  • David F: Build sheets helping. It's in its infancy but helping.
  • David F: Problem with green sheets. These are going down to the store but shouldn't be. There should be some indication of specs that goes in the store, but not the same as the green sheet.
  • Alec S: We intend to start with general issues and move to details in subsequent meetings as we establish the structure of the build program.
  • CL: When are the next meetings?
  • Alec S: Saturday the 6th 10AM, followed by June 17th (Wednesday) 6:00pm.
  • David H: Interested in being build instructor (build program first)
  • Alec S: Build program first; we're establishing this as we go. Attending the meetings would be a good start.
  • Alec S: Mailing list is established as of today. Email Stephen to get onto it.
  • Cecilia: Will we get more tables?
  • Stephen S: Not likely; we'll get more power, though. The Northern build

tables will be replaced with benches.

  • Cecilia: We need to be more organized; waste less time finding things.
  • Stephen S: Agreed; may consider turning them sideways to conserve space.
  • Alec: We will also be able to better organize the build materials once the new tables provide more structure.
  • Alec: Pattern for preparing agenda?
  • Stephen S: The list will be up; people can post things
  • Alec: Stephen S, could you send out a message a week before reminding of the meeting and soliciting items for the agenda?
  • Stephen S: Yes (COMMIT)
  • Cecilia: How many builders are there?
  • Stephen S: Don't know; we don't distinguish who a builder is and who isn't. QCers and builders are both in there, and pre-build too.
  • Cecilia: I didn't know you were supposed to include QC in there.
  • Stephen S: OK, let's go over the build sheet. (Review of build sheet follows)
  • David F: Allow builders more control over what they build to keep?
  • Stephen S: Not certain; open to idea.
  • Stephen M: When does the builder sheet get done relative to build sheet?
  • Alec: At same time, when they come up for build. After you've touched it, it should be fully identified as yours.
  • Stephen M: As staff QCer, no way to give feedback (builder doesn't know who it is from)
  • Alec S: We should keep all build sheets on file after the machine leaves. How can we put this in place? How can we get a form prepared with specs for the store?
  • David F: Is it important to keep green sheets?
  • Alec: Yes -- it provides narrative; we already have the info and would need to transcribe it otherwise.
  • David F: Important part is to have the specs. The keeper stickers are frequently inaccurate.
  • Stephen M: Spec sheet needs to have detail. (SATA? # slots?)
  • Alec S: That's a lot of work. Would it not be better just to pop the side off if there are specific questions?
  • David F: It's the builder's machine; the builder should take responsibility for what's on the sheet as definitive. Flaws will come back to him/ her.
  • David F: What's on the build sheet that's not on the build sheet?
  • Alec: Separate the notes from the build sheet. Less transcription.
  • Stephen M: Privacy issue. What about letting people's names out?
  • Alec: All we have is first name & last initial.
  • Stephen S: We don't need name at all.
  • Christine: Need name to look up person.
  • Alec: First name is more personal. Would like to include it.
  • CL: Would rather not. Privacy, but also unscrupulous customer. Once they pass staff QC etc, they should all be up to a certain standard.
  • Stephen S: So be it; this will happen anyway, regardless if they know first name or not.
  • Alec: If this happens, it's the process that failed, not the builder. It will happen if the process is wrong regardless of whether the first name is known or not. Address that problem.
  • David F: The point is that we should meet a minimum standard.
  • CL: Customer asked for a machine from a more experienced builder. Want to avoid that situation. Store staff was forthcoming about who had experience and who didn't. That should not be divulged for professional reasons.
  • Stephen M: Make the builder identification part of the detachable piece of the build sheet (comments etc.)
  • Alec: Agree with CL. Proposal: Split the build sheet in two. Dissenting?
  • Stephen M: What point is there in keeping the rest?
  • Alec: None.
  • Stephen S: Who can mark up the build sheet?
  • David F: Having trouble visualising. Detachable part will contain specs?
  • Alec: Was considering giving the only copy of specs out with sheet and discarding the rest. We will have no copy of specs. Problem?
  • Christine: If we get feedback, it will be helpful to have a copy of the history.
  • Stephen S: Another thought. It looks odd with all the info on the sheet, but is that a problem?
  • Stephen M: Yes, it's a problem. Whiteout.
  • Alec: If a machine goes through a long story, it doesn't mean the machine is bad. But it does decrease saleability.
  • Stephen M: How about the QCer transcribing?
  • Stephen S: Yes.
  • Alec: Keep transcribed portion as simple as possible; otherwise it won't be properly tracked.
  • Stephen M: Even Best Buy doesn't tell you how many slots there are when you buy a machine.
  • Stephen M: Do we have a way of demoting a builder yet?
  • Stephen S: No; ad-hoc for now.
  • CL: When we test a system, it asks for a volunteer number. Does that track?
  • Stephen S: Nobody knows.
  • Alec: The goal was to track; not currently happening.
  • Alec: Review past decisions:
    • No new builders for now. Had one.
    • New builders will have the pre-build assessments complete.
  • Stephen: Will throw in a new builder occasionally. Will do pre-build assessments.
  • Alec: Don't know yet how to do the assessments.
  • David F: Stephen S and Meghan were discussing the time commitments needed to pass each station; don't know what resulted from that.
  • Alec: Time isn't all that matters; need to know concrete ways that can be given to build instructors so that assessments are equal.
  • Stephen S: This will be by the seat of the pants initially.
  • David F: Do we have a rough outline of what Portland does?
  • Stephen S: An instructor will sit by while candidate instructs on station
  • Alec: I've never run those stations, can't assess someone's teaching.
  • David F: Instructed one of stations; documentation at station was excellent.
  • Christine: Can we do same documentation for build?
  • Stephen S: Portland has some; when I'm here I'm run ragged.
  • Cecilia V: I'm writing notes.
  • Alec: (Review continues) Clean the benches before the end of the day
    • Going well. David doing Thursdays
    • Build forms
    • Personal projects
    • Machines on racks
      • There were a few unfinished machines on the finished rack.
  • David F: We need a better process to get machines out of finished rack.
  • Stephen S: We have money to buy more racks
  • David F: Can we take things down to the store?
  • Stephen S: Store is full. Need to start grant process.
  • Stephen M: Can we move the board?
  • Stephen S: Yes.
  • Stephen M: Can we move the benches up now?
  • Stephen S: Would necessitate another move of everything to get power in.
  • Stephen M: Why hasn't the power been done yet?
  • Stephen S: Volunteer hasn't come in yet.
  • Alec (Review continues)
    • Feedback / board
    • Machines go back to builders to fix.
      • Should go back on in-progress rack; feedback on board and on sheet.
      • Otherwise builders will not complete their req'ts to grad.
  • Alec: How do we give feedback to eval'ers?
  • Stephen M: What about a whiteboard?
  • Stephen M: Eval is crucial; need feedback.
  • Stephen S: Eval is going to be part of pre-build and I will end up taking it over. Everyone in eval should be in pre-build. Feedback can go on the builder sheet.
  • Stephen M: New volunteers should not be at eval. It's too important.
  • Alec: Meghan currently does pre-build; whoever arranges volunteers needs to be aware of the build sheet system and get sheets in place.
  • CL: We're tracking machines once they get to build; worth tracking earlier?
  • Stephen S: This was tried in Portland; didn't like result.
  • Alec S: Keeper sticker gets us partway there; simple and effective.
  • David: Maybe more effort than worth; consider dismantled machines, things that get caught only during build, etc.
  • CL: Useful and constructive. Should be how FG conducts mtgs.
  • Alec: Build fodder. Where to get adoption boxes?
  • Stephen S: It's hidden / buried.
  • David: Did spend time scrapping stuff, but it's too much. Need to schedule? Need to pass off to warehouse guys.
  • Alec: Just need to ask Jamie.
  • Stephen M: What about Fridays?
  • Stephen S: That idea has been blocked.
  • Alec: Let's try to catch Jamie before he gets busy during the day.
  • Stephen M: Can I ask staff to do something, as a volunteer?
  • Stephen S: Absolutely yes.
  • All: Meeting concludes.
Personal tools