MLAI community decision-and-feedback record — edited 10 September 2026
Fictional teaching record — not an MLAI event, participant study or measured community result. Every person, note, date and delivery observation below is invented.
Save and edit your own copy. No notes are submitted, no participant permission is granted and no event registration occurs.

ORIGINAL FICTIONAL INVITATION
We are choosing the exercise for a beginner AI session on 14 August 2026, 6–7pm AEST. Would spotting unsupported answers or drafting a reply be more useful, and what would help you take part? Send a short written response by 7 August, 5pm AEST, or join the optional 20-minute discussion on 5 August at 6pm AEST. The volunteer organiser, Lee, will decide within the booked room time and post a plain-text update in this same group on 10 August. Taking part is optional and unpaid; no expenses are offered. Use invented examples, not personal or workplace records. Contact Lee through the existing group route about participation needs; do not assume a recording, captions or other support is available until confirmed.

COMPLETED FICTIONAL RECORD
Activity, decision owner and actual dates/timezone:
Invented beginner exercise, 14 August 2026, 6–7pm AEST; fictional volunteer organiser Lee owns the decision. Invitation 1 August; input closes 7 August at 5pm AEST; decision update 10 August; review snapshot 14 August. No actual event occurred.

Decision still open / constraints already fixed:
Open: answer checking versus reply drafting, non-code starting point, preparation and question route. Fixed: booked room/time, one-hour session, available volunteer effort and no private/client data. Lee retains the choice; no co-design or transfer of authority is claimed.

Who is invited and why; whose input may be missing:
Twelve invented existing members, P1–P12. Eight contribute. P9–P12 have no recorded input; reasons are unknown. Existing members do not represent all newcomers, non-members or the Australian AI community.

Participation routes and confirmed access arrangements:
Optional 20-minute discussion on 5 August at 6pm AEST, or written input in the existing group by 7 August, 5pm AEST. Using that group needs no new account for these invitees. No universal accessibility, remote event, recording or captions promise is made. The timing barrier remains.

Time, payment/expenses and data-use expectations:
Optional unpaid contribution; no expenses offered in this invented invitation. No sensitive data requested. Lee keeps the minimum working notes for the stated decision and contributor checks, not for marketing or AI-service uploads. A real organiser must confirm appropriate payment, support and data handling for their activity.

Input received, with duplicates and uncertainties noted:
All 14 invented notes N1–N14 are supplied below. Discussion contributors: P1–P6. Written: P2, P4, P7, P8. Overlap P2/P4: 6 + 4 − 2 = 8 distinct contributors. Notes are issues, not votes; repeated contributions cannot create extra people.

Contributor check: is the summary accurate?:
In the fiction, N1–N12 have summaries checked with their contributors before the decision update. N13/N14 still need clarification; their meaning is not inferred from a theme label. These are invented steps, not actual consent or member validation.

Decision / reason / what did not change:
D1: non-code answer checking before optional code. D2: advance plain-text example and written questions. D3: retain fixed room time, investigate a later online option. D4: synthetic data only. Reasons and note references are retained; disagreement is not erased.

Response given versus change actually delivered:
All 12 notes linked to D1–D4 have an organiser response dated 10 August in the fiction. The advance example is posted 11 August and the non-code synthetic exercise supplied 14 August. The response count does not mean 12 resolved issues or successful participation.

Unresolved issue / responsible person / next update date:
N13/N14 await clarification. D3's earlier-time need is not met; an online alternative is not confirmed. Lee owns the 21 August update. These remain open at the 14 August snapshot even though the session plan was delivered.

Permission and identification check before sharing:
Every ID and observation is invented, not de-identified MLAI research. Do not publish an equivalent real row-level log by default: combinations of route, timing and request can identify someone. Keep raw input private, obtain appropriate permission and review a safe summary before sharing.

Participant feedback after delivery / next adjustment:
No post-session participant feedback is included, even within this example. Delivery and response rates cannot establish trust, learning, retention, attendance improvement or that barriers were removed. Next ask what remains difficult; the response and next adjustment have not been observed.

ALL 14 INVENTED INPUT NOTES — IDs are not real people; do not publish equivalent real raw records by default
N1 | P1 | discussion | The code-first exercise is difficult to follow. | D1
N2 | P2 | discussion | Practise checking an answer before learning a tool. | D1
N3 | P3 | discussion | Start with a short answer and the source it claims to use. | D1
N4 | P5 | discussion | Keep a code demonstration available after the basic exercise. | D1
N5 | P2 | written | An example beforehand would help prepare a question. | D2
N6 | P4 | discussion | Allow written questions rather than requiring speaking. | D2
N7 | P7 | written | Use a short plain-text version, not only presentation slides. | D2
N8 | P8 | written | Keep sharing in the existing group without a new account. | D2
N9 | P1 | discussion | An earlier start is needed to attend. | D3
N10 | P4 | written | Consider an online alternative if the room time is fixed. | D3
N11 | P3 | discussion | Real client emails might make the exercise more familiar. | D4
N12 | P6 | discussion | Keep private records out; invented examples are enough. | D4
N13 | P7 | written | Make the discussion private — meaning still unclear. | Needs clarification; no decision/response recorded
N14 | P8 | written | The recording arrangements are unclear — desired change not yet clarified. | Needs clarification; no decision/response recorded

DECISION, RESPONSE AND DELIVERY RECORDS — every observation here is fictional
D1 (N1, N2, N3, N4):
A non-code starting point, with an optional code demonstration.
Decision: Choose answer checking, not reply drafting. Provide an invented answer and source excerpt first; keep code optional. This is an organiser decision, not a vote count.
Response: Lee posts the decision and reason on 10 August.
Delivery/open issue: Within the fiction, the printed non-code exercise is supplied on 14 August. Its usefulness still needs participant feedback; supplying it does not establish comprehension.

D2 (N5, N6, N7, N8):
Preparation and written contribution without another account.
Decision: Share a plain-text example in the existing group and accept written questions.
Response: Lee posts the decision and reason on 10 August.
Delivery/open issue: Within the fiction, the example is posted on 11 August and the written route offered. This does not show everyone received it or could use it.

D3 (N9, N10):
Earlier timing or an online alternative.
Decision: The booked room time cannot change. Investigate a future online option, without promising it for this session.
Response: Lee explains the constraint on 10 August; a response does not remove the barrier.
Delivery/open issue: The access barrier remains. Lee owns the next update on 21 August; availability, cost and suitability of an alternative remain unconfirmed as of the fictional 14 August review.

D4 (N11, N12):
Conflicting requests about real client data.
Decision: Use synthetic messages. There is no permission to use client records; realism does not override that limit.
Response: Lee explains the boundary on 10 August rather than treating the two notes as votes.
Delivery/open issue: Within the fiction, the demonstration uses invented material on 14 August. This is not evidence of permission to process real participant or client data.

BLANK COPY — replace fictional values, keep unperformed steps marked not done
Activity, decision owner and actual dates/timezone:
Decision still open / constraints already fixed:
Who is invited and why; whose input may be missing:
Participation routes and confirmed access arrangements:
Time, payment/expenses and data-use expectations:
Input received, with duplicates and uncertainties noted:
Contributor check: is the summary accurate?:
Decision / reason / what did not change:
Response given versus change actually delivered:
Unresolved issue / responsible person / next update date:
Permission and identification check before sharing:
Participant feedback after delivery / next adjustment:

PRIVATE INPUT LOG TEMPLATE — restrict access; do not collect identities beyond the activity's needs
Note ID / appropriately managed contributor reference / route / input / summary checked or unclear / linked decision / response actually given / delivery evidence / remaining issue:

PUBLIC UPDATE TEMPLATE — remove identifying combinations; confirm permission before sharing
What you could influence / what we heard (safe themes, disagreement and missing input) / decision and reason / what changed or did not / what was delivered / still open, owner and next update / how to correct the summary:

Guide: https://mlai.au/articles/featured/how-to-foster-community-engagement