WIP Wednesday #1

saintsal

It was great for a Kernel hang, but I don’t think this went well for the goals of WIP Wednesday. Thinking through the root causes, I think there’s already a case for a return to WIP Wedneday tech-only origins (though maybe keeping a different one that’s more inclusive.)

First my feedback with my fellows hat on:

I care about learning to build blockchain things, hyperstructures, smart contracts, apps with more decentralisation than web3 login. I’m mainly focused on getting to shippable solidity.

What I got out of that hour was learning what slither is, and seeing some kind of API call to GPT-4 with a temperature parameter. That was interesting, but not enough to make the hour worthwhile.

From this experience, I honestly wouldn’t return regularly. I’d pop in occasionally to see if builders are around and doing something interesting, but would look elsewhere for creative, product and buildery sharing (rather than pitchy and businessy, which is mianly what I vibed here.)

Here’s my take with my stewards hat on:

Overall, I thought it was really energetic, more than previous WIPs. It also felt a lot more like Andy/Vivek interviewing someone in firesides which has upsides and downsides. Previous WIP Weds felt much more like open mics for people to ask and chat as the code was being explained. So good to have the guidance, but more hands-off in comparison. We had a good result I look for: people picking up useful tools and tips that wouldn’t normally be mentioned in presentations or prepared content.

The first session was good – solid code to see, a tour of SSDD’s worksapce.

Only 0xSSDD really shared code. Shan jumped around from project to project, and only talked about a static site generater without showing his code. (just his repo’s file directory on github)

The remainder were pitches, just with a live demo. And they weren’t on anything particularly timely, mainly showing stuff that’s already been built and deployed a while ago. (In a few cases, by other people.) The last one was Armie explicitly trying to pitch his product to Vivek.

A few observations on facilitation:

At the start:

We didn’t introduce or show the figjam
We didn’t introduce the timer
We didn’t ask who feels like sharing today (though I asked when the floor was handed to me)
@cryptowanderer could you maybe next time introduce your co-host at the start? I would have jumped in with these things.

The pitch sessions:

I didn’t manage to get anyone to actually share code
I fumbled the handover. I tried to pass to Dhruv, since he was the only one I knew that had WIP to share.
@vivek, you then invited people to present. (and this is right after we talked twice about not using that term!) I guess you thought you were being helpful, but everyone just looked to you as the facilitator from that point on. You’re a steward they recognize, I’m not. I got the impression you were naming the people you’d personally invited to present because it almost instantly became the same format as showcase. Char didn’t even share her stats dashboard when I asked. People didn’t respond to me whenever you pulled in a different direction.
In spite of the sessions being pitchy, I actually had a lot of good questions to ask them, that I think would have helped with their MVPs and fund-raising goals, but I couldn’t get in without interrupting or contradicting Vivek. That would have been too weird. So ironically, even those non-builder goals I felt went unserved. It really bothers me to miss these opportunities to help them - and I feel (ir)responsible.

At the end:

What worries me most about this is I’ve never seen a room empty out so quickly and completely at the hour in a WIP Wednesday or Debug Day. My impression is it got so pitchy that everyone was waiting patiently for the end to leave. We’ll see next week how many builders return.
I wanted to ask people for feedback, especially if the video feeds were good enough for them, but didn’t. Vivek was in mid-conversation with Armie about tracking users on the Kernel website, and I just managed to let people off at the hour, while Vivek wanted to continue with Armie, and also even invited KD to present. By this point, Vivek, you were completely overriding me as the host. If you were a fellow, that would have been out of line, and I would have more forcibly pushed back.

My suggestions:

We make it clear the focus is on WIP this week. This way we insist on the in progress part of WIP. That should keep it more real. (I’ve also modified the figjam intro text, which I think should be displayed in a screenshare at the start of each session so it sinks in.)
We move WIP Wednesday back to tech only, or separate a broader version of it somehow. I still think that coders will want feedback from coders, product managers from product managers, researchers for researchers, etc. which is why I suggest this as the way to do breakout rooms. If not, we risk losing the coders.
We decide which steward actually runs WIP Wednesday and makes the decisions. I don’t feel I have agency over it, and Vivek, seems you have different designs for it (Andy, maybe you too?). By now I know it doesn’t work out for me to put energy into resisting either, so I’ll bow out. I’d be happy to take responsibility for a builders-only version, and share/delegate hosting with Andy and maybe a few other fellows who build.

Sadly, it crossed my mind during this that I wanted to just reach out to the actual builders privately, and host a Super Shadowy Coders separately. This isn’t a good sign, since the idea of putting WIP Wednesday into the Kernel program was to make it builder-friendly. And I recognize the contradiction there, since I advocated for making WIP more inclusive! Doh. I just think this has already swung far too general, and not actually about the week-to-week of creating new things.

So that’s why I think we should take it back to its roots. We can serve researchers, writers and “info products” with Paper Party. And the fundraising/product stuff is a better fit for the Fellows Track imo.

aliyajypsy

I still think that coders will want feedback from coders, product managers from product managers, researchers for researchers, etc. which is why I suggest this as the way to do breakout rooms. If not, we risk losing the coders.

@saintsal i empathize with your urge to keep it to builders because it’s more engaging, motivating, and perhaps more actionable for them, increasing their chances to return. i only want to emphasize the benefits of cross-disciplinary minds sharing unique feedback for disciplines other than their own. i think it is useful for the person sharing their WIP to have a diverse audience because that audience can point out crucial elements that might be difficult for someone stuck in their specific sub-area to see. this is only a point, not a suggestion or strong opinion, and i defer to you if you think that the benefits of a diverse audience will not be regarded as important as the benefits of a like-minded buildery audience, especially if it will serve retention better.

one suggestion i do have, if we decide to try again with the same, more inclusive approach is that when we communicate ‘show us code, content, or dashboard,’ to also give 1-2 examples of each. it will seed the space with more clarity & for those on the fence about joining.

Another suggestion on this point:

We didn’t ask who feels like sharing today

Asking this question, while also inviting specific people to come and share, is at odds with each other. For example, i think we invited Pedro to share his content, he came, and there was no time for him to share… In my opinion, i think it needs to be one or the other, either we invite people in advance to share and plan a queue for, or from whomever shows up we say at the beginning “we’ve got enough time for about 4-5 people to share today, who would like to?” based on the organic flow and vision i’ve heard from Salim, i think the latter makes more sense. I’m trying to be more intentional with our communications, let’s try not to contradict or confound our communications choices.

lastly, this was my first time attending a WIP Wednesday, and i tend to lean toward a rosy-lensed view. I want to call out that i don’t understand why Armie’s sharing was not considered a WIP. can you help me see the nuance? Yes, i understand it was a demo, yes i understand it was somewhat of a pitch to Kernel, but at the same time, it was not Omnio’s finished product. Omnio is looking to improve, transmute, and be more advantageous to potential users. Should Armie have shared a specific pain point in a scrap document and taken feedback from there? Rather than demo-ing the product and describing the vague pain point?

vivek

Cool, good reflections. Considering how we learn and move forward, here’s where I am:

For WIP Wednesday:

Agree with the nudge towards “you’re actively working on this week”, and more builder-y (the stretch goal for all things Kernel also being & diverse).
I’ll take 3 big steps back from WIP Wednesday (I will happily be a substitute host, never a primary). It is yours and Andy’s to run & apologies for getting too close to the fire yesterday - I see where you’re coming from.
I’m going to get an experimental convos up on the Mettā Module & its impact on both products & DAO’s. Maybe I’ll bring my thinking back to WIP as in-progress work – I think it’ll help me find a pocket of good work, to play with formats, etc.
When Paper Party, Research Clinics, Intention Circles get going, I think I’ll be better suited to be a primary in some cases.

If you and Andy want my thoughts Week One happy to share. Also will update my mental model for whom to invite and what to suggest they share.