Title. Use folders & Labels as necessary

• End of each term, we can sell equipment to put cash (back) into our cash-box. 24 hours items are listed, FCFS and ig people can bid for it if they want? Maybe just a google sheets with a linked form and ppl can put in name/bid. idk.

• Usually consider: broken, in need of repair, no longer used items.

• Parts come with a written paper saying warg is not responsible for safety or damage to items…

Potential list of things we can sell off:

• older / in a bad state ESC’s.

• Broken/badly damaged video transmitters

• ICARUS motors (vtol, we’ll likely not use them again for a while)

  • Try and hang onto. May build a VTOL in the future?

• Older quad/hex motors (we can use them, but don’t really have the parts necessary to actually run them)

• Large/random props

  • we do use these occasionally, but very rarely for warg purposes (usually thrust stand, most recently icarus) and it’s probably better just to sell them off instead of keeping them.

  • We should keep 10-14” props as well as the small props

• Old ESC’s (T-motor ones)

  • these have failed a large number of times… I would not trust flying anything on them anymore

• Old GPS stuff / A/v stuff / etc

  • idk do we ever use this?

• Old 3d printer filament

  • the “USE PLEASE” ASA and the grimy looking transparent PVA?

In the past, we have sold:

• receivers/transmitters

• controllers

• Confirmed. Most of our stuff in the downstairs bay right now, furniture and non-valuables outside.

• Tomorrow morning will help VEXU move out, and then move in, inventory, sort, layout.

• Bay code tracking, reset document, etc.

• Need to talk to Teertstra about Cage shared with RI3D (can we continue to use it?)

  • Supposed to end this term. Megan Spee (To talk to graeme)

Anthony Luo Megan Spee

• Levels for each thing

  • a level, for example, unlocks some classes of aircraft? small (houston, phoenix, judie), up to icarus (discontinued lol but this would be the hardest…)

• Confluence documentation for each level

• online quiz + in person demo (for some) levels.

• Will go from basic (no qualification) up to competition ready?

  • Final step from advanced → comp is HAM operator / advanced RPAS

• The distinction between quadcopters and planes

• Distinction for FPV (two? levels)

• Who will be administring these tests? Will they have checklists?(Xierumeng)

  • Anybody higher level or two levels hiher can administer?

  • When taking a test, the test examiner? will ask you to demonstrate certain skills on a checklist.

  • Goal is not pilot ability/gcs ability, but safety & operation

• Is it actual TC drone license? (Thushanth)

  • We’ll require basic for anybody (pilot) or (GCS).

  • Don’t need it if buddy boxing

Anything in this box please critique/discuss, comp selection processes should be scrutinized pretty hard so we can make it better

• How many people, from which subteams, etc.

• Looking at 14-16ish people? or 10-12?

  • this has definitely been discussed before. make a decision if possible

• the ‘process for selecting competition-goers’ documentation should be made easily available start of fall term, with expectations outlined pretty clearly.

• How to choose / limit people?

  • Self-nomination/interest form (self id, leads discretion)

  • Want people for each role? (need to clearly define what tasks exist and what needs to occur)

  • Rated on contribution - subteam leads decision may not be complete law.t

  • Either nominated by director, or someone else on a subteam.

  • Leads will likely know quickly yes/no for whether or not someone should go.

    • cutting down to meet #'s will be harder. Needs to be decision made as a team?

    • Probably easy if set nomination deadline, subteam leads come to meeting with shortlists, then decide

  • List of roles / stuff to do

    • Can find group of people to do a bunch of stuff isn’t of fitting people into pre-defined roles.

• Competition Roster Selection Guide - Administration - WARG (atlassian.net)

• @xierumeng to draft

• Conall Kingshott to draft

• Megan Spee to draft

• Draft to review @ next leads meeting (before first day of school sep 6)

• 4Mx4M space @ comp 🤔

• Workload assessment, being ready for a LOT of new bootcampers

  • Do we want to continue accepting everyone? Can have applications // reduce number of bootcampers // give tasks directly. Can be subteam specific. Can (potentially) automate onboarding reviews to some degree (esp for linting code style and/or a testbench for code functionality like ECE labs). Unsure.

  • EFS (from chris): Had a chat yesterday about what tasks we’re going to have && enough tasks for all newcomers. In general, nobody had attention of not-taking people (feels bad). Like team bc we take people ! and mentor them! Haven’t hit that point yet! Wato interviews feel too much like an actual job.

    • conall: wato struggled to grow…?

    • aadi: agrees with chris. Sees role of design team to give people skills that they can use. would feel bad. Might get a lot of bootcampers but a lot of people straight give up && decide that it’s not worth their time. Testing patience 😄 how fun. EFS doens’t need to reject people.

    • Conall: Don’t like application to our process. Doesn’t feel right? From mech tweak the bootcamp to get more definitive expectations / things to expect . Automate checking beforehand before talking to leads (reduce workload). Make bootcamp a learning experience that someone has to work through first.

  • Aidan: if not enough people to teach, then need to create more teachers…Lead title brings people from sorta active to 100%? Need to give responsibility and let people meet challenge.

    • If concerned, then need to give more people the ability to flex their skills?

    • more people == things in batch

  • Michael (EE) : make bootcamp as autonomous as possible. If can figure out, have willingness/ability to teach themselves & work on their own… don’t spoonfeed everything?

  • Mihir (autonomy): Get lots of members in the fall, not a good idea to limit number of members. Issue in auto is that there were lots of on-site members in the summer, but not in the fall?. Two auto-leads on-site (will help in people getting up to speed?). Have seen lack of senior devs - need to get past this. Rather than leads managing every person, ID senior team members and work with them as PM’s? Might make it easier to make it easier.

    • Mihir Id’d one reason leave the team: They think the team is really focused on AI? want to stopp using buzzwords to describe the stuff autonomy does, changing the auto bootcamp to something ore relatable on autonomy. Want to be more clear & specific about what autonomy does at recruiting events.

• Exit interviews

  • Should try and understand (ask) why people leave the team, since we invest a lot into members and we want to figure out why they leave && how we can make onboarding a bit better.

  • Main reasons may be : not enough work, not enough mentorship, not enough stake in the work, dislike work.

• Subteam Socials

• Reviewing recruitment & marketing approach.

  • Making sure we’re clear on what each team is doing (ties into project goals for short/medium term)

  • having information available.

Megan Spee , Georgia Vachon Westerlund

Generally:

• making sure we are advertising that we are always open to new members (depending on how many ppl we want to onboard)

• allowing members to quickly and easily understand what teams are working on and what they can expect to do on all of those teams

  • update the website! (and/or ping ryan/georgia about updating the website).
    DO THIS BEFORE NEXT LEADS MEETING (we will review the website then).

• on my mind:

  • posterboards explaining our drones (looks cool, easy to understand)

    • image of a drone and an anatomical / assembly drawing / exploded view of the drone

  • Tiny models of aircraft?

  • WARG branding (banners/stickers/idk)

    • “waterloo aerial robotics group”

  • Website to include more info?

  • Socials ! Video edtiing Alison Thompson

  • large fabric warg banner (it has to be larger than dronolab)

The rest of it

• idk we’ll discuss this in the meeting

Georgia Vachon Westerlund Megan Spee

• Also to be discussed. Projected income and areas that need the most funding

(on my mind: printer, rf stuff, electronics)

This is something we used to do, and we should continue to do!

• Have some contacts in our e-mails (usually very fast response)

• Leverage discords && other community forums

• If reaching out:

  • communicate from WARG e-mail, make a reasonable ask && make it clear/concise/detailed.

  • Can pass through to derek to ask to connect.

< Section content moved to end of page for (better formatting) reasons>

• Who will be on-site next term?

• Focusing on comp stuff

• Conops kick-offs - we need to be ready. Schedule out meeting times regularly each week for those syncs and architecture meetings to happen.

• Can leverage existing sync shedules.

• Increasing sync-schedules for comp specific parts (tracking antenna, RF infra, etc?)

• Having concrete test & project plans before the term starts

  • not just “what are we going to test” but also making sure “how are we going to test it” is cared for from all sub-teams and there’s points of contact listed for active projs.

  • Hopefully done before next leads meeting (early sept, probably).

Megan Spee

• interest in aero design and simulation should be utilized this comp season