This group is organized to create correspondence (meeting notes), suggestions for social media posts for the 2022 Summer Membership drive.
I encourage folks to continue conversation (meeting notes) specific to the social media for the drive here, including needs etc.
Uploaded are the documents that we’ve used so far to craft the posts for the campaign, the schedule, and additional notes that can support future initiatives around social media.
Some pressing items are as followed (6/14)
- Learning and sharing design aesthetic for social media
- Determining what project management software or strategy from the forum is best appropriate to organize social media posts and have it accessible to as many people who want to contribute.
- Creating an effective infrastructure here in the workshop space that has directions and a guide for anyone who is interesting in creating the social media for the campaign.
- Have it remain as the prototype for following specific social media campaigns.
Here are all of the documents thus far that we’ve looked at, formed, and contributed to specific to the campaign. I can also include links of language we have used from other resources if necessary here too.
@zetto.plus here is a brief synopsis of what we’ve done and what we are looking at to base our meeting on thursday.
curious to know if you had thoughts about the 4 points, i think the most pressing is actually the design question- if we can figure out aesthetics and have it be translatable and accessible to where folks can quickly tap in and produce something within vision that’ll be great toward creating a process that we use to tackle social media.
Aight, here’s my ideas.
AFAIK, Buffer is the tool being used for organizing and posting on social media. In the same way that developers use Github, and designers use Figma, Buffer should be considered “the place where the work gets done”.
A forum usergroup should be set up which has the same membership as the folks who have access to Buffer. This usergroup defines who is “in the social media working group” – accountable for that task and actively engaged with it. Folks who previously had access to Buffer but aren’t contributing anymore should be removed so it’s clear who’s “on the field” playing the game.
A forum category should be set up in Workshop as the public space for this working group. Anyone in the forum can see what’s going on in that area, chime in, and come to a regular meetup call which is pinned in the category. At the top of that category will be buttons that link to this meetup call and state who is the coordinator for the group (or pilot and steward if that model is used).
Whichever team model is used, I feel it essential that the group’s membership be clearly defined and that it be clear which entity has the decision making power over what goes onto Buffer and gets posted. Is it the group itself as a whole? Is it a particular person in the group? Does everyone in the group have the right? However this is sorted out, it is important to decide and note publicly at the top of the category. New members should be formally approved by the group itself or by their designated coordinator. This isn’t to put up walls to participation, but to make distinctions in folks’ level of engagement.
If forum denizens do stop by the category to offer thoughts, drawings, concepts, etc, they need clear feedback from the working group about if their materials will be used or not – or what needs to change in order for them to be used. These responses should be public in the category itself. Without this, passersby may see folks offering ideas and then no response from the working group. In this case, potential contributors will have little incentive to share their own ideas and the benefit or purpose of that open working space will be unclear.
In addition to the category in Workshop, the working group should have a more private real time chat area, whether Signal, Telegram, etc. Participation in that chat should be limited IMO to the folks who are in the working group, otherwise posting in the public forum category – and new volunteers – may fizzle out. Setting up a Mattermost is in the works and is juuuuuust about ready.
The working group doesn’t need to be defined as the “social media working group”. Perhaps it makes sense to have a working group which handles not only social media, but also the newsletter and sending out emails? Wherever that boundary is drawn, it should be drawn so that those on the team know what they are responsible for and have all the tools they need to be creative and have autonomy. If they have to regularly coordinate for approval or key tasks with someone outside the working group, it will be frustrating.
I personally find it helpful to start out by conceptualizing a working group with a totally generic name – “Yellow Team” or something – and then ponder “what skills, tools, and authority does yellow team need in order to get stuff done?” And then backtrack to the name once I have a better sense of what the thing is.
I’d encourage a distinction between the working group itself and any chosen or appointed advisors who may have valuable perspective but who are not responsible for the day to day work.
As much of this you feel you need, I can meet up to help set it up and hand off whatever keys are needed (except for Buffer, which I don’t think I have access to).
here’s my loose notes from our meeting last night/yesterday, focusing on comms design/esthetic/tone.
def check out and i hope it jogs your memory on items we said we’d follow through on. I’ve bolded and starred (*) items that should be paid attention to.
let me know if anything’s unclear
appreciate y’all making time!
just wanted to make sure you all had the notes from the meeting we had today re: where we’re at and next steps.
I’ve placed a calendar at the top with tasks we’ve come up with that are due immediately as well as having a gameplan for follow-up in the coming weeks
check it and lmk what y’all think/if y’all have suggestions on how we’re moving and things we’re missing