Shannon joined at 11 am and we wrapped up the prior meeting. Eventually, only Wayne and Shannon were on the meeting. These are a couple of notes that I got from Wayne. He is hitting walls and boundaries on the servers. He wants to keep pushing them forward and tuning them, but he needs the following three projects done:

1. We have two really big tables that need to be pared down. He wants to consolidate some of the fields into objects of settings. Currently, we have hundreds of settings, all in their own database fields and columns. That is ok, but it makes the tables so big that we can't change the database table engine from MyISAM tables to InnoDB tables. This is all related to different table structures on the MySQL database model. MyISAM tables are an older model and if a lock happens, it locks the entire table. The InnoDB tables are more modern and if a lock happens, it is on a line by line level vs a full table lock. There are also some performance options as well as security pieces that differ between the database table engines. Long story made short, Wayne wants us to prep things in order to convert everything to InnoDB tables.

2. Some of our databases are getting huge... Gigs and Gigs worth of data. That is awesome and means that things are getting used, but because of the structure, we can't split and load balance things very easily. We have to physically pull systems off of one system and put them on their own system to do the load balancing right now. This is a very manual process. We have a project called the datasource project or splitting up the database (bus to motorcycles - world building) project. There have been multiple efforts in this direction, but we keep getting pulled off of things. This would be huge and would allow us to change the size and configuration of the databases. Small companies would only be dealing with their data vs being on a somewhat shared environment and dealing with all of the other bigger businesses traffic. You can't access the other companies data (virtual walls and sandbox type environments), but there is basically other traffic from neighbors who are on the same server. In order to grow, like we would like to, we need to fix this.

3. The way we store files, images, and media/content limits our growth model. We allow systems to store and record information directly back to our boxes. That works great for single servers. However, if you plan on clustering and/or stacking servers, to get more power, that placement of those files and assets needs to be addressed. There are tons of other entries in the developer's notebook about media/content, servers, paths, and storage locations. It works great right now, but it also is somewhat limited in the scalability of those pieces. A single company won't see the limits, but the more companies that you get on there and playing with some of the same resources, that's where you see some of the scalability issues starting to show up. Some of those same limiting factors also prevent the clustering, stacking, and auto load balancing pieces. We need to figure out a way to store the files, images, and media/content assets in a place that is configurable vs hardcoded or built in to the app or software package.

As a side note on the file storage stuff, Wayne has some code that he was working on when we were kicking around the AWS (amazon web services) stuff. We may be able to harness some of that work and effort to make this happen.

Wayne wanted to know what are plans are for these 3 projects. I told him that I would email Steve and Cory and see what they say. Without putting anybody under the bus... we've known about some of these projects for years. We push on them here and there, but we haven't really finished up any of them yet. That's where it gets hard. We can't control all of the other variables (time, money, other projects, other demands, etc.). It's a challenge.

////////////////////////////////

Switching other to what Shannon and I were going over...

Lots of moving pieces and we are getting internal pressure to stabilize and standardize certain pieces. We have had quite a few of our key players state that we've had meetings and meetings and keep rehashing the same pieces with no changes. That gets really frustrating.

Currently, Steve and I's approach has been to keep chipping away at things and wearing multiple hats, all at once. Another analogy is spinning plates on a stick... We spin what we can and hopefully the other plates keep spinning. Sadly, we are dropping some of the plates here and there. There is a disconnect between what is needed (on a management level) and who is playing and what time is available. We are doing the best we can, but we really need some help.

Shannon and I met and talked about maximizing vs optimizing. We tend toward the maximizing side of things. That is pretty natural. We also talked about setting up a MVP (minimal viable plan) dealing with our management structure and business model. Shannon and I are going to be working on a business plan, but that could take weeks and weeks (months) to tighten up and finalize. We may need an MVP type approach for the time being.

As part of that, we are thinking of proposing the adilas jelly fish model as the current plan. Our goal would be to keep firming it up and moving into a more structured environment. We would like to specify lead dependables and cofounders in certain areas. Those would be the adilas team leads for the different areas and/or virtual departments. I think we could establish this type of an MVP plan for our business model pretty quickly.

Shannon and I also talked about a couple of the current hang-ups that we are seeing and facing. There is pain in transitions some times. Nobody wants to take on the full load, if they really know what is going on, due to it's size. Shannon and I chatted about pairing people up and almost doing a buddy type system to help with managing the different areas. We may need to mix and blend to create our teams. Some of those teams already exist, but they are very loose level teams. The goal is to firm that or those pieces up a bit. I think that would help.

Sometime "titles" have become a barrier. For example: nobody wants to be the main boss, the top executive, the full owner, etc. We may need to stick with words and phrases like: founders, cofounders, advisors, mentors, trustees, dependables, etc. Along with this... Shannon said, you guys love to create new terminology, why not do the same thing for what position you hold.

Good ideas coming in from all of the people around us. We need to keep coming up with our own company structure. Along with that, we need to decide and try things. It's ok to change it up later on. Nothing is set in stone. Think phases, pick and choose, and try storming type mentalities.

Shannon and I reviewed this previous element of time (#5295) and the drawings attached (scans and handwritten notes) to get some notes and it helped us go through a great discussion.