[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Shannon Lee wrote:
> 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'm thinking stuff like the weekly happenings? Those seem like obvious
announcements, perhaps even worth leaving out because we mostly know
about them?

> 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 think we've basically been skipping by default. It's working well.

> 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.

That's a good point.

> 
> 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 :)
> 

Seriously.

> 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.
> 

It's also hopeless in many other ways.

> 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.
> 

It's true. That created a particular tension but it was resolved for the
most part by discussing it off-line.

> 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 think the idea was a maximum time? It seems like your suggestion is
how we normally roll, the addition is to make sure we don't just keep on
rolling forever...

> 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.
> 

For the love of no dogs, thank you Shannon!

Best,
Jake