Based on the work done by the mighty @els, last Monday in the Coordination Group (ping @reef-coordination) we finalised some sort of planning / pipeline of topics for the plenaries of the next two months. Based on the planning we received from the architects, this schedule happens to coincide with theirs, i.e. the end of the avant-project and the choice of units at the beginning of February.
In practice I anticipate that we will need to go “as slowly as necessary” a couple of times, for the simple reason that we will be taking very important decisions. This will probably mean that some topics will be split into several sub-topics and/or that they will be spread over several plenary meetings.
My hope is that this schedule helps the different teams to prepare the proposals in time for the respective plenaries, and as the Coordinator I also hold the intention to use this schedule to plan the Coordination Group meetings much more in advance.
It’s important to note though that it is just a draft (it has inconsistencies and that’s ok) and that therefore the schedule is not set in stone. As we will most likely be moving topics in function of what is feasible, I added a timestamp at the bottom left, so that we can see which is the latest version.
I personally anticipate that we are going to run into a delay of about a month. As long as we are clearly making progress, we are not dragging our feet, and the delay remains limited, at this stage it seems fine to me to get a little delay.
The document is saved in the Coordination Group folder > Avant-project timeline: Login – Nextcloud
Thanks lee, if it’s not too much asked, could you indicate by a colour code what ‘tasks’ are for which team, gives a direct view for coordinators to see what they should do for their team…
@Lee Team building won’t make it to present a proposal on the buanderie.
I don’t know either if we can go for consent on the ‘contract for the finishing’.
A lot of people choosing for option 1 have added conditions who i need to clarify with the architects. I personally think it’s either best to:
have another clarification round (with maybe questions for the architects that we can ask on our meeting with them the day after the PM).
invite all those who want, to the meeting with the architects to ask all their questions. To me it’s clear but maybe there is a lot of personal interpretation in to what i tell you and I have the impression i don’t get it explained to make it clear to you . So best to directly ask them so you can continue to ask questions till it’s fully clear for you.
Now that everybody has submitted their questions on the casco vs finishings in the survey I’m not sure it would be a good use of plenary meeting time, especially because the meeting with the architects is the day after. Is it ok to not put this on the agenda?
If yes, that would leave us with @reef-finance. Let me check …
@alberto: would you be willing and able to present the unit valuation method (including Oak Tree) plus the pricing of the options?
@RichardB: would you be willing and able to present the clarification point on the abattement?
I’ve received a proposition of the ‘level-1’. This info can be shared. There won’t be any consent possible as the layout/size of the ‘commons on -1’ might change during the discussions with the technical experts. But it could be a sharing of info and gathering questions/info. Let me know… Don’t think it will take up much time neither (20 minutes?)
@els can you please add the link to the agenda for the -1 plans topic? For temporary convenience I have created a folder Team Building > Plans. Maybe save it there?
I would personally prefer to put the item up for consent, in the sense of “we want to consent to this version or else this is the list of requests for changes we want to make”. A bit like “good enough for now”. The way I understand things the fact that there may be changes later on by the technical experts is true for many things, and should not be a reason to not seek consent right now. It’s an iterative process, and so I would think that consenting to the current proposal would be a useful step forward for the architects. Happy to get your thoughts on this.
