@aliyajypsy A lot of good points here.

The challenge in this process to step away from leaving them as intentions, and getting to thought-through designs. It is hard, yes, which is why the rules of engagement require skin in the game – you can’t just say what outcome you’d like without thinking through how, and having the commitment to see it through yourself.

This is to get out of the loop we’re in right now, where we keep suggesting changes, but pushing the tricky parts onto other people, or getting into a tug-of-war when it comes to the how.

@aliyajypsy said in Suggestions for KB8:

we just have to tinker with finer details such as size, setup of office hours, mentor engagement, guide outreach.

So in this case, these things aren’t details, they’re the central part to figure out.

some starting points for you

You’ve started though – you described a hazy idea of what expo or a build track could look like. I suggest you pick out specific ideas, and do a ritual design and an explorer sketch for them,. (The templates are in the figma.)

For example, you could describe what an Expo looks like that you want to run, then illustrate how it fits into other parts of the program and ask questions to see how it might fit with other parts. You could also suggest how you think Reviews should work (provided you’re willing to take responsibility for running Reviews if it’s agreed to do your way) and sketch that out with specific processes, events, timelines, and share those.

one idea per forum thread

When you have sometime to share, post each idea as its own thread, to allow for clearer, distinct feedback on each concept.

1:1 calls to sketch out ideas

If you’d like we can also jump on a call and sketch your ideas together. That might get your creative momentum flowing. I can also show you some concepts that will help you expand beyond the 7-week scope. For example, I’m almost done a 1-month version of Kernel that addresses most of your concerns, allows for breaks (and has healthy pacing). I’ve also done the “how” work, by going through the key content in learn track and various guilds, to make sure what’s delivered is just as coherent and valuable (arguably more so given the current engagement rates).

labels

I agree on our labels - they’re deeply problematic because their definitions are always ambiguous and in flux. Even towards the end of your post, “build track” crept back in. I was told that since kb5, “build track” was no longer to be used, which is why we came up with “adventure time” – to be inclusive to non-build forms of adventures. So we can either piece apart the kernel definitions of adventures, projects, build track, adventure track, etc.

Or we can explain things using definitions from the Oxford dictionary. I think that’d be easier for everyone. At a push, if we have to describe our ideas using only the term “fellow” then everything else has to be explicit - so less prone to misinterpretation.

@aliyajypsy said in Proposal: change the order of stage gates:

lastly, i sense tension between the baby Vivek and Andy have built and Salim’s work experience and best practices. i’d would like to frame this tension as a strength. we have your three experiences building peer-learning environments together in one place. how lucky are we? it is an immense strength that bolsters our ability to improve the experience we create for fellows. i don’t want us to get lost in this strength or be frustrated by it. i’m hoping we can communicate clearer, better. whether that’s here, or in sync meetings.

❤ strongly agree and believe we can find something better together. we’re in the thick of the search! it’s a struggle sometimes, but i am grateful for your words and your honesty aliya, it comes through as always. & thank you sal for pushing us in generative ways.

Good to see your thinking exposed - thanks for that.

Trade-off curves

The trade-off curves will be much better with numbers, to really see where the important ranges are for us to manage. Without them, they’re a useful expression of opinion, but not that actionable for designing options. For example here, if there are clear answers to how many notifications per day become too many, we can design around that.

Personally, I think we’d see that a lot of the linear, up-to-the-right graphs are more likely to be bell curves. Specifically, actionable info and steward damage control would go up in cases of too few notifications or too little or unfindable information.

Decentralisation in our comms

Stepping back to the main concept, it would be useful for you to show which use cases you see depending on Comms, and how you distribute them in those two categories.

One thing I’ve noticed is that tools that require “admins” force centralisation. Tools that give agency to people without them needing permission don’t. (Vitalik explained this at a high level which is relevant to us here.) That’s a salient issue for me when thinking about what Comms tools and modes I need for Topic Tracks and Juntos – and tbh any type of education that’s peer-driven – since we want our tool choice to “slope down” towards more agency rather than depending on permission.

This is the last week I had in mind to get us to final designs. Still lots to do.

A few more shapes to explore:

Fractalise everything: mini-accelerators, weaving learn track explorations, etc. and it’s opposite, to lean into centralization where it’s happening and take advantage of its possible efficiencies A shape without any special roles (other than Stewards) which effectively means turning Guiding and Guild Leadership into a learning track or topic A shape with no applications, just guest passes and headhunting requests
Then circling back with all the learning to: Progressive improvements on the 8-week block

There are a few deeper prototypes I expect to open up more useful configurations: sponsor-guided research, Guest Passes, Mentor Impact (ask-orient-respond), getting into specific versions of mini-hackathons…

Going to try to keep my head down to designing for the next 2-3 days. So if we have calls, I’ll try to keep them short and shipping something specific. Crunch time!