[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

Wed Apr 8 22:14:39 UTC 2009

As a "new" member but long time "satellite" of Noisebridge my thoughts on
nils original "time limit" would be to have a timer that's visible on the
projector.  With each new item, start the timer (10-15min?) counting down.
 When the timer hits zero, an additional overtime period (5-10min?) can be
added if needed.  Once that overtime period ends, it's obvious that further
discussion is required and the item is tabled for the night.  Seems like 20
minutes was our exhaustion point last night.  Steen mentioned he had a timer
going, but I think having the time visible on the screen is useful for the
rest of us as I know I tend to lose track of time myself.
As for covering all the weekly events, I think just having them listed off
by the moderator without a full explanation is helpful for new members.  I
know there were a few people there last night who were there for the first
time to check out Noisebridge.  Letting them know what's going on is good,
but explaining the same thing every week is a waste of time for the rest of
us.  If someone knows the name and day/time then they can go on the wiki for
more information.

With the example of the drinks discussion last night dragging on, it sounds
like if consensus is being asked for there needs to be a way for someone to
call for clarification, i.e. "I'm not blocking or arguing against, but I
need clarification of the item before I can either give consensus or block".
 It's then up to the responsible party to reword it in a manner that
everyone understands.  This idea was discussed briefly by a couple of us
later last night.  I haven't been to a meeting in a long time, but would it
be useful to have a concept of "call for clarification"?

-Ed

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:49 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
>
> +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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20090408/c8c65156/attachment-0003.html>