[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Davidfine]

A long, fruitless meeting is the fault of the bad moderation. That is all.
--D

jim 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
>
>
>