@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).
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.