@saintsal said in Updates from Salim’s Kitchen:

Destructured guilds

I really love this idea, and it has me thinking quite a bit. For example, how nice would it be to have your Kernel syllabus include 1-2 of Antonio’s movement sessions, as a part of your destructured guild.

The persona I’m most curious about here, though, is the Fellow, not the Guild Leader.

Given Convo today, it would take a lot of clicks to make your own syllabus. I am thinking about how, when you go to university, you have an advisor who does all the clicking for you to pick your classes. That doesn’t really work for us (although, I guess, ‘Peers’ could help there), just sharing the idea.

The benefit of Guilds, early on, is that it allows fellows in orientation to fill up their schedule with something with just a few clicks. We might be able to suggest 2-3 ‘Destructured Guilds’, instead, for example something like:

• A Smattering: 2 DeFi Sessions, 1 Token Session, 1 Movement Session, 1 Research Jam, 1 WIP Wednesday

Or we can have them click through and pick for themselves (which I think is the current suggestion), but just note that it gets a bit tiring, quickly, to sign up for a variety of sessions yourself. Some balance here, no strong opinions yet. A healthy learning environment is the goal.

Related enough: I am still grokking how “Topic Tracks” & “Destructured Guilds” will converge, as they feel related. Letting them sit for now. Thanks for this thread.

Does this link show you the latest?

@saintsal It does! Great updates overall, reading and digesting.

@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.

Okay, I’m open to the re-org of the stage gates formally. Changing my vote to

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

KB8 kickoff in Q1 2023

Typically, we take 85-90 days between announcing the block and it actually starting. A December 15th announcement of apps already meant a kickoff of March 2023. Assuming an evolution of the past processes, we could still sneak in with a late Q1 2023 kickoff date, but only if apps open by Jan 15th. Here is the model if you want to play around with it yourself.

I support the evolutionary time, but we should acknowledge that this is what is happening.

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

(I was hoping some of the versions we put forward would have some clear lengths and would highlight some counter-contraints or dependencies that would be useful to focus on, but it seems there aren’t any.)

My suggestion is specifically for a 9 week Kernel Block, making space for a reflective week. I’d want to spend more time in Aliya’s suggestions here in other posts (“setup of office hours, mentor engagement, guide outreach.” Maybe missing some counter-constraints / dependencies?

@saintsal said in Our Clearest Learning Container: KB8:

Lots of great ideas here, and I can some convergence possibilities right away:
several proposals have a break, especially around 1 month in
breaking things into smaller parts with starts and ends, than a more nebulous, layered flow
seems a few people are interested in exploring smaller blocks

I the convergence thoughts. Breaks & smaller parts, deeper learning environments. Also open to smaller blocks and keen to see how they might work. (Noodling on a 9-week spring / 4-week summer / 9-week fall timeline, which we’ve floated in the past – not feasible for '23 anymore, but maybe '24).

I also have now spent 3 hours writing 2 responses, and am yearning for some time together to untangle together outside of the forums. Just putting that out there

@saintsal I’d propose a minor amendment to Gate 1: length of block & schedule communicated to fellows start date + length of block confirmed and applications open, and keeping the order as is currently stated.

I am happy for us to use “stage gates” as terminology, but it feels natural that gates 1 & 2 are worked in tandem, which seems a bit against the metaphor of gates, which suggests one must complete before the other is worked.

I want gate 1 to still be the top priority; the longer we wait to open apps the more pressure or lethargy we will feel as stewards. this gate will inevitably complete first in the process, by at least 3 months, with the launching of apps.

This said, gate 2 is clearly where our control lies while we regain footing on Services. the more progress we make on gate 2, the better we feel about gate 1, and in general, i agree that it is our focus now.

gate 2 informs gate 1 in many ways, but it need not be 100% complete to announce the block. i’d say aiming for 80% completion would be a wonderful goal.

Perhaps some of this is semantic, but in general, I appreciate the opportunity to reset and to test out the accordance model.