[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

Wed Apr 8 21:04:40 UTC 2009

I don't think it's easy to separate "announcements" from "things we need to
discuss".  Often we don't know we need to discuss something until it's been
announced.  That said, we've done some of the optimization described here,
with projects and events sections at the top of the agenda...

I agree that each item on the agenda needs to have a responsible party, who
leads discussion on the item.  I think "has the option of skipping" is too
weak -- I think it's the expected outcome:  if an item has no owner, it
should be skipped.

I agree that items can be presented by proxy, but the person presenting the
item by proxy shouldn't be allowed to cop out with "this isn't really my
thing" when pressed; if you're not comfortable actually representing the
item, you shouldn't agree to do it.  This is a hard position to be in.

The person running the meeting can't also own items.  The person running the
meeting is in charge of moving the meeting along; the person who owns an
item is responsible for getting the item resolved; the tension between these
two imperatives (plus the added imperative of the secretary, who is striving
for clarity) is where consensus happens in a timely fashion :)

This is what I see as having gone wrong with the last two meetings.  I think
Jake agreed to "represent the concerns" of people whose concerns he didn't
necessarily share, and at the same time he was trying to own these items
while leading the meeting.  This put him in a hopeless position as far as
moving the meeting along.

I will cop to having been at least half of that particular problem, but part
of the job of the person running the meeting is to tell problem people to
shut up, and it wasn't possible for Jake to do that in good conscience when
he was the person who owned the item that I wouldn't shut up about.

Rather than having a set time for each item that we strive for, why don't we
encourage people to postpone items that are not immediately important?
Maybe it should be the task of the meeting leader to manage the agenda in
the week leading up to the meeting by talking to people who own items (which
can be determined by looking at wiki logs?) and make sure that things go as
quickly as possible.

I agree that more people need to step up and take on tasks like this.  I
volunteered, at Jake's urging, to take on running next week's meeting.  I
encourage others who feel capable to do the same.

--S

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM, <nils at shkoo.com> wrote:

>
> 2. On the meeting agenda, for each item (either an annoucement or
>   discussion item), request that there be a responsible party listed.
>   This person will either make the announcement, or present the issue
>   that requires discussion.  Whoever's running the meeting has the option
>   of skipping agenda items that do not have a presenter, or where the
>   presenter is absent.
>
>   If you have an item that you need to present at a meeting but you can't
>   make it in person, it is perfectly acceptable for you to present
>   vicariously through another.

>
> 3. Have a generally accepted maximum time, say 15 minutes, that we try to
>   stick to when discussing any one item.  (And maybe encourage the
>   movement of an announcement to the discussion section of the agenda if
>   time spent on the announcement runs over 5 minutes).  If the discussion
>   runs over, we could encourage the discussion particpants to use the
>   following procudure:
>
>   a. Identify the participants of the discussion who have the most zeal
>      regarding the issue.
>
>   b. Have one of the zealous participants volunteer to be the responsible
>      party for the issue.
>
>   c. This responsible party will be responsible for coordinating a
>      consensus among the zealous participants.  The responsible party
>      should not do this as part of the general meeting, but instead
>      coordinate with the zealous participants directly to arrange a time
>      and/or method for additional discussion.
>
>   d. Once the zealous participants have reached consensus
>      among themselves, the responsible party can present their new
>      recommendation at the next Tuesday meeting.
>
>   We should also recognize that it is non-excellent to raise significant
>   objections to a general consensus, and then to not make an effort to
>   participate in the outside-of-Tuesday-meeting council of zealous
>   persons.
>
> 4. I've also heard a bit of minor grumbling that a small number of people
>   keep getting stuck with running the meeting, so I think we should
>   encourage a broader volunteer effort for this duty.  (I'll certainly
>   volunteer to run the meeting on the 21st)
>
>   One way to deal with this might be to have new members be encouraged to
>   run a meeting before they become members.  That would have the
>   following benefits:
>
>     a. The new member would have to have attend enough meetings that they
>        understand how the social dynamics of our group work well enough
>        to run one.
>
>     b. The new member would have more visibility to existing members
>        whom they might not otherwise have a reason to interact with.
>
>     c. The existing members will feel warm and fuzzy feelings towards the
>        new member for performing this onerous task.
>
>   I figure maybe it could be like the beer: You're not required to run a
>   meeting to become a member, but we sure would love you if you did.
>
>   Perhaps also we could ask for volunteers to run next week's meeting
>   during the previous week's meeting so we don't have to play
>   who-gets-impatient-first every week?
>
> 5. Try to discourage non-meeting-related chatter in the space during the
>   meeting (or at least encourage it to be low volume), since it distracts
>   from the goal of finishing the meeting and makes it difficult to hear
>   what's going on.  If we optimize the meeting such that it fits within
>   more people's attention spans, I think this would be a lot easier to
>   do.
>
> Would any or all of this help?  What do other people think?
>
> Unfortunately I won't be able to make next tuesday's meeting, but I'll be
> there on the 21st.  But if anyone else would like to present these or other
> meeting optimization ideas on the 14th, feel free!
>
> -nils
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>

-- 
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20090408/95830d0e/attachment-0003.html>