I‘d join for sure 
@djan, @jitka, most importantly @amelia - what about Thursday afternoon, just afterlunch time, like 2 pm CET?
1 Like
I can do 2 UK/3CET, if that works for you all.
2 Likes
Works for me!
Sorry guys I completely missed your replies. Thursday 3pm CET work for me as well. Thanks
OK, let’s plan for 3-5 CET on Thurs. Pop it in the calendar!
1 Like
Hello,
I would like to join.
Is this happening tomorrow and where (if yes)?
1 Like
Edgeryders Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: POPREBEL Coding Training
Time: Jun 10, 2021 03:00 PM Stockholm
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 896 0923 9374
Passcode: 695846
We are meeting tomorrow, June 10th right, 3 pm, right? In the meeting invite there is June 9th! 
Oops, yes. Use the same link, I’ll update.
Dear @amelia
Could you please confirm that for some time now we have been able to look for co-occurances within:
0 - the entire corpus
1 - entire threads
2 - posts within those threads
3 - annotations within these posts?
Not sure I understand this. Co-occurrences are measured at the level of posts. We can do it another way, but this is the way that makes the most sense. When you look at the SSNA, this is how it is measured.
What I meant, was that we were supposed to be given some tool sensitive to codes’ proximity. From what I remember, instead of one based on e.g. word count (no. of words from one code to another) we can look for codes that appear within a given annotation. Am I right?
We decided to break down the interviews in this new way before proceeding with that, to see if it became necessary. But if we decide after seeing the results of that new coding we want to calculate co-occurrences a different way, we can do it differently.
Ok, thank you, Amelia!
For some reason I thought this option has been introduced nonetheless.
It exists as a function anyway because that’s how Discourse works – so if you want to “see” the co-occurrences at the level of individual annotations or entire threads, I’m sure we can do that, but we collectively decided it didn’t make any sense at the moment after that long meeting discussion…
I think we need to start doing more detailed notetaking in our team calls, because we keep having to revisit the same things repeatedly – I think my notes are not detailed enough to keep everyone’s memory fresh. @rebelethno, I suggest we rotate responsibility for notetaking and posting notes after meetings. Can someone please volunteer for Friday?
I also have a conflict from 2-3:30 my time Friday (which is our meeting time), so please go ahead without me – coordinating a meeting time shift at this juncture will probably be difficult!
2 Likes
Maybe some of the knowledge (as it gets hardened) could be moved into the manual. It is more permanent than meeting notes.
2 Likes
A lot of it isn’t really manual stuff, more procedural / informational agreements and explanations for our project specifically, but yes — the things that are handbookable I try to update consistently and will keep doing so. It requires people using it as reference document, too, so hopefully everyone can check it for answers first and also update it if they get an informative answer worth documenting for future reference or notice something that needs updating!
Also, aren’t you supposed to be on holiday, sir? 
Hands off the computer and go relax!
1 Like
Dear All, @Wojt and I have done a lot of re-coding (or rather re-organizing and still on a spreadsheet, not backend) and I will be posting our thoughts in about an hour. What we want to communicate seems to be quite important, so perhaps we should try to reschedule because the boss that is @amelia should be a part of the discussion we hope to have.
And I agree about note-taking. Let’s start recording our sessions and then we will rotate transcribing them, OK? Transcripts will be, of course, highly selective, just to catch the main ideas.
2 Likes