[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

jim jim at well.com
Wed Apr 8 21:49:14 UTC 2009



+1 

   maybe divide the category of discussion into two or more 
subcategories, e.g. things we must discuss tonight, things 
that ultimately require concensus/decision/action.... 
   maybe allot time for discussion topics wrt number of 
topics for the evening? 
   maybe d-m-i (de-member-ification) might entertain lack 
of active support: e.g. those who never run a meeting had 
better demonstrate that they've taken out the garbage or 
run for beers and sodas or some other supportive activity 
(pay extra to the general coffer seems satisfactory to me). 
   "running a meeting" _is_ different from "taking notes", 
yes? 
   is there a "run the meeting" signup sheet on the wiki? 


On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 13:38 -0700, 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:
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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
> 




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list