[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

Jeffrey Malone ieatlint at tehinterweb.com
Wed Apr 8 21:43:15 UTC 2009


I think I've been willfully blind to the grumblings of those who are
routinely forced to lead meetings (up to and including Jake asking me
last night to lead a meeting at some point).  As such, I too will
commit to running a meeting at some point in the future.
Perhaps, in fact, it may make sense to ensure there is someone labeled
as running the meeting in advance.  This might prevent the routine
30-45min lateness of our meeting starts, and get them over sooner.

As for speeding along the meetings... I was suggesting last night on
the irc channel that we should have time limits.  I recommended a
vague model from the fmof presentation: 5min for someone to present
the item, 5min to discuss.  If it takes less time, fantastic,
otherwise it needs more discussion, and interested parties should meet
to discuss it.
With shorting meeting times, it may even be possible for them to meet
after the meeting and then have it prepared for next week.

Additionally, I think there should be a meeting time limit that should
simply not be breached.  Certain things that are specific deadlines
perhaps should be put to the top (such as approval for activities that
will imminently happen at the space), and new memberships should
obviously be included (perhaps at the beginning so as to allow new
members to participate more in the meeting?).  So as to what that cap
is, I'd suggest 90 minutes.  Beyond that, and the meeting is simply
evil, discouraging and turning people away.

For new people, Tuesday is the best time to come.  Lots of people will
be there to meet, and any questions you have can be answered.  Right
now, however, I'd be surprised if we weren't scaring people away (even
existing members).

No matter what, we definitely need to find a way to stop the craziness
that we find all too often in meetings, especially last night's.

Jeffrey

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list