Recap of December 14, 2017 meeting

Github setup

@pbrocks and @lpinelli are working on the screencast and @juliekuehl is finishing figuring out the logistical pieces/process of the parts of how we’re going to manage individual plans.

Tasks

@see_tutt has a group of volunteers that will be helping our team.

Changes are going to be made in Make for right now and then ported over to github. We will have only one canonical copy.

@donkiely suggested having folks pick the plans that interest them the most and officially assign them. He’ll keep track of where things stand to avoid confusion.

@Josh McIntyre will help @juliekuehl with github and project management.

Slides

@jillbinder wanted to know if we should be including slides with lessons.

@melindahelt said “we moved away from slides for other lessons due to many many factors, but these seem a lot more “static content” slides — and we can’t make everyone happy as far as format so I’m thinking what if we had a PDF of slides, ready to go plus provided a raw text file of all of the text from the slides this way if someone wanted to make their own slides, customize the content, etc they could”

@bethsoderberg said we can’t use non-open-source technology in the production of slides. Also this conversation has been around for years with a lot of the original concern about accessibility of content to all people. Reveal.js is OK but has a barrier of entry to folks who are non-technical. PDFs are bad because they can’t be edited and have accessibility problems.

That being said, there was a brief mention of this at WCUS (_I think_) about allowing for slides to be submitted as extra materials through pull requests in Github.

@juliekuehl thoughts we had decided to go with Reveal.js as an “extra” to the content we provide.

@bethsoderberg: Going back to earlier in this conversation, I like @melindahelt’s idea of including a plain text format.

@juliekuehl: I am almost imagining that our lesson plan is the plain text format and the Reveal.js version is the same but in slide format.

@bethsoderberg mentioned that would be opening a can of worms since we want to revisit the format. Can we decide that using slides reveal.js are ok with a text-only backup? I think @jillbinder‘s workshop participants are totally right that this would help them spread the diversity training more effectively/efficiently.

Not knowing JS shouldn’t be a barrier for edits or changes because they are basically text.

This might work for @jillbinder.

@bethsoderberg suggested using this with just the diversity plans first and seeing how it goes.

Recap of slides discussion by @bethsoderberg:

I think this is the proposed solution based on this conversation:
1. Slides are made using Reveal.js
2. A text-only version is made too (this could happen first if the slide author is not familiar with HTML)
3. Potentially a PDF version of the Reveal.js slides is made available as well.

This leaves three potential things that users/teachers could use/download: the reveal slides themselves (either a download or link somewhere in our resources), the text-only version, and the PDF version.

@juliekuehl suggested a print version -> save as PDF in CSS.

@bethsoderberg suggested simply printing the PDFs.

SupportFlow Problems

SupportFlow is broken. We thought with was fixed, but now we’re not sure. @bethsoderberg and @esteschris are working with Meta to get that fixed.

Questions and Announcements

Question from new member @chetan200891 regarding format of the LPs and if they were consistent.

@Josh McIntyre asked if we have a list lesson plans that need testing. @bethsoderberg said we did but it is out of date.

@bethsoderberg is going to be out towards the end of January/beginning of February and would like more people to help with the rotation of leading the meeting.