[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Hell yes!

nils at shkoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The last couple Tuesday night meetings we've had have both run a little
> long, and we've gotten stuck on some items.  I have some ideas as to how
> we might help optimize the meeting process so it doesn't get dragged out
> quite so much:

These ideas are totally welcome and absolutely awesome. Thank you!

> 
> 1. Separate out the agenda into "announcements" and "discussion items".
>    Do the announcements first, and attempt to postpone any items requiring
>    consensus to at least after the announcements.  This way we can optmize
>    the group excitement for cool things that are happening before we get
>    bogged down with discussion.
> 
>    There are certain items that might include both an "announcement" and a
>    "discussion" component.  I would say that it's fine to separate these
>    components.  For instance, we could announce "we got this cool
>    equipment in; later in the meeting we will discuss what to do with it."
> 

I think this is a great idea. I'd also advocate for the removal of
weekly announcements that are static. Do we really need or want a twenty
minute introduction of all of the regular things most of us know about?

> 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.
> 

This is a great idea.

> 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:
> 

General time limits are great. Perhaps fifteen minutes per item is a bit
much though?

>    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.
> 

I think the process outlined above is a really good idea. It sounds
hyper functional, especially in comparison to our current non-process!

> 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)
> 

I've been grumbling about this. We as a group really should have
different people running the meetings, not waiting for people to show
up, etc.

I'd really like to encourage anyone who'd like to lead a meeting to
please go right ahead. Even if you're not a member, if you feel like
you've got a good idea, it can't hurt to try. It in fact is really
awesome to try and learn from the experience.

>    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?

That sounds like a great set of suggestions. I think it should be
emphasized that *everyone* should be stepping up, not just new members,
but also people who have simply not yet facilitated a meeting.

> 
> 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.
> 

I think this is a really good idea as well. It's just a matter of
setting expectations for the evening. Tuesday is a social day at
Noisebridge and this sorta conflicts with being quiet.

> Would any or all of this help?  What do other people think?
> 

I think all of your suggestions would help, they're all really great.
Thank you so very much for writing them up and sending them to the list.
You're my hero. Seriously.

> 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!
> 

I'll be there and I absolutely flat out refuse to lead the meeting. :-)

Best,
Jake