2026-04-16 community circle minutes

exodrifter · April 16, 2026, 11:29pm

The following roles have been confirmed:

Facilitator: @PGComai, 3 months
Secretary: @prod, 3 months

Minutes

The meeting took place 2026-04-16T15:10:00Z→2026-04-16T16:12:00Z.

Agenda

Select a facilitator
Select a secretary
Have an open discussion

Attendance

In attendance:

Since the circle has not yet selected a facilitator and secretary, @exodrifter is playing the interim facilitator and secretary.

Selection

First, @exodrifter starts the process for selecting a facilitator.

Nominations:

@PGComai nominates @outfrost based on vibes, for 3 months.
@prod nominates @outfrost because he seemed interested in having a process role at the last meeting, for 3 months.
@outfrost nominates @PGComai because she seems good at speaking, for 3 months.
@maidmage nominates @prod based on vibes, for 3 ~~minutes~~ months.
@tomaterr nominates @PGComai for 3 months because she seems good at speaking.
@generalred nominates @outfrost, based on vibes for 3 months.

Change round:

@PGComai has no change.
@prod nominates @PGComai because they agree with @outfrost and @outfrost already has a process role in another circle.
@outfrost changes his nomination to @PGComai and himself.
@maidmage changes their nomination to @PGComai and @outfrost based on vibes.
@tomaterr has no change.
@generalred changes his nomination to @PGComai to help spread the roles out.

@exodrifter proposes that @PGComai be facilitator for 3 months:

@prod, @outfrost, @maidmage, @tomaterr, @generalred consent.
@PGComai accepts.

@exodrifter loses connection briefly due to technical issues, then starts the process for selecting a secretary.

Nominations:

@PGComai nominates @maidmage for 3 months because they’re not speaking on voice very much, and that might be better for taking notes.
@prod nominates themselves for 3 months because they do this at work and also already keeps their own version of the minutes.
@outfrost nominates @maidmage for 3 months because he appreciates @maidmage’s ability to write good posts on the forum.
@maidmage nominates @outfrost for 3 months. @maidmage expresses some reservations about accepting the role due to being busy elsewhere.
@tomaterr nominates @prod for 3 months, because you can hear them type.
@generalred nominates @maidmage 3 months because the quality of @maidmage’s posts on the forum are good and also thinks that it’s a good way for more quiet people to be involved.

Change round:

@PGComai changes her nomination to @prod because @prod’s enthusiasm has won her over.
@prod changes their nomination to @maidmage and themselves.
@outfrost changes his nomination to @prod and @maidmage.
@maidmage changes their nomination to @prod, because they feel that @prod could be capable of being facilitator or secretary without any issues.
@tomaterr has no change.
@generalred changes their nomination to @prod.

@exodrifter proposes that @PGComai be facilitator for 3 months:

@PGComai, @outfrost, @maidmage, @tomaterr, @generalred consent.
@prod accepts.

Open Discussion

@exodrifter hands the floor to @tomaterr for open discussion.

@tomaterr says that the circle could either spend some time getting to know each other or talk about strategy.

@outfrost wants to know what kind of rules we want to have, what kind of process we want for new users, and guidelines for how we vibecheck people on matrix. Says that we have rules already, written by @exodrifter.
- @exodrifter makes a correction: The rules are not written by her and are a copy of the default rules you get when you install Discourse.
@tomaterr links an article about how to make proposals in sociocracy and says that this process will probably be followed in future meetings to decide on these issues.
@tomaterr says that there are primarily two domains in communities: user retention and user acquisition.
@tomaterr asks if it is correct that any user on t/suki can invite more users.
- @exodrifter says that it is incorrect; Discourse has a trust level system that increases your level as you interact more on the forum and only TL2 users can invite more users.
- @outfrost points out that the Matrix is publicly joinable.
- @exodrifter agrees and says there is no such system on the Matrix side, unless we write code to integrate the two more closely.
- @tomaterr said that this may change how some of the rules work.
@tomaterr asks @prod to confirm if they still want to work on onboarding, and @prod reaffirms their interest.
@tomaterr asks @exodrifter to confirm if they want some of the moderation work to be lifted off of her shoulders and @exodrifter confirms this.
- @exodrifter says that Matrix does not have very good moderation tools built-in and that there is a Draupnir bot installed to make this easier.

@PGComai asks if the Discourse forum as the walled garden and Matrix as the entry point is a temporary arrangement or is intended.

@exodrifter says that it is this way because while federation support is available for Discourse through ActivityPub, the federation plugin is not very good. The current situation is due to this technical limitation
@exodrifter also says that @outfrost and her are both interested in potentially writing better federated forum software to replace Discourse, but this will require a lot of input from the community to build something that the community likes.
@outfrost likes that the forum is restricted to invite or application, with the Matrix being more open. He thinks it would be nice to figure out if Matrix could be a good entry point for people to become familiar with t/suki and join from there.

Discussion about t/suki growth:

@maidmage wants to know how many applications we’re receiving and accepting.
@exodrifter says that only one person has gone through the application process so far.
@maidmage says that the application form is a level of friction that blocks out a lot of people and that it may or may not be a good thing.
@exodrifter says that her original intention in restricting to invite and application only was to prevent a situation where we have users who no one knows.
@maidmage says that they think there is a bit of value in strangers, but that it increases the moderation load and needs to be discussed more.
@maidmage is concerned about whether or not this approach may kneecap t/suki’s growth.
@maidmage thinks that Matrix has the same lack of permanence problem that Discord has, and would like to see more focus on the forum.
@tomaterr is worried that the Matrix and the forum and bifurcate the community, but that the Matrix is really useful for things like operational voice calls. Agrees that the focus should be on the forum.
@tomaterr points out that there have been really successful communities before that were invite-only, like NeoGAF. For now, thinks having invite-only on is good.
@tomaterr thinks we need to build a tight-knit community at the core, to help with retention and for creating good network effects. Plus, it costs a lot more to acquire users than to retain them, so good network effects will help with keeping the users that come around.
@tomaterr says that @exodrifter has suggested mandofun events to help build a feeling of community with everyone that is here. Suggests OpenTTD, because it is long and will let a lot of users to drop in and out. Also likes Golf with Friends.
- @halfcourtyeet suggests playing something smaller scale like Jackbox
- @outfrost notes that there are enough people to play Among Us and also suggests quake 3.
- @PGComai likes the idea of mandofun and thinks it would be cool to have a schedule of different games.
- @exodrifter says that games don’t necessarily need to be involved for mandofun.
  - @tomaterr says that’s true, but that we’re also gamers, so it makes sense to do games.

Retrospective

@exodrifter asks for retrospective comments:

@PGComai thinks the meeting went really well and has a lot of ideas to think about now. Was really happy to hear @tomaterr’s example of a successful invite-only space.
@prod thinks the meeting went well and that there are so many things to talk about now, and that one hour does not feel like enough time.
@outfrost felt that when the unstructured part of the meeting happened, a thread was lost. Appreciates not being selected for a process role today due to feeling overwhelmed.
@maidmage thinks the meeting went well and feels that a lot of ideas were shotgunned out and that the group will probably only be able to work on two or three at first.
@tomaterr is happy with the meeting, and thinks sticking more to the sociocratic process will help get things done.
@generalred liked the structured parts of the meeting. Wants to point out that he would normally prefer a harder cutoff time and more structure would be better for that.
@halfcourtyeet and @rohajin don’t have anything to add since they joined the meeting near the end.

Closing

In response to @prod’s desire to have more time, @exodrifter asks the circle if meetings should happen weekly instead of every other week by doing a quick yes/no round. Everyone consents.

The next meeting will be on 2026-04-23T15:00:00Z→2026-04-23T16:00:00Z.