[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Jeffrey Malone]

I fear that this thread has suffered, in part, exactly what the
problem is with meetings.

I suggest that people who are slated to lead meetings read through
these, and decide for themselves what they like.  When it comes time
for them to lead a meeting, I encourage them to simply enforce
moderation as they see fit.
If they feel an issue is taking too long, they should simply decide
themselves to move on and let those impassioned on the issue to form a
committee to work out their issues.

If we try to do some sort of committee on changing meeting formats and
then propose it to the group for consensus, we'll ultimately end up
with the "too many cooks in the kitchen" issue.
So for simplicity, and the enjoyment of all through shorter meetings,
I encourage those leading meetings to moderate them strictly.

Jeffrey


On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Asheesh Laroia <noisebridge at asheesh.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Christie Dudley wrote:
>
>> I'm also opposed to hard cutoffs.
>
> I am firmly in favor of hard cutoffs.
>
> I came to all the first few Noisebridge meetings, even the first "meeting"
> where we assembled to check out the space. That was before the space was
> ours, and it was before there were any members.
>
> Now I rarely come to Noisebridge meetings anymore because they take a long,
> long time, and they don't usually start on time (in my experience). The
> result is that they're extremely difficult to plan for. These days when I
> come to meetings I try to come in late; it's an attempt to second-guess the
> meeting start time.
>
> But I love Noisebridge, the place and people!
>
> I think that 90 minutes is a long time, and should be enough time.
>
> My feeling is that this should be left up to the meeting moderator. If this
> week's meeting moderator wants a cutoff, let him or her decide that, and he
> calls the shots. If someone wishes there weren't a cutoff, let the do-ocracy
> speak and that person should run a meeting with no cutoffs.
>
> I volunteer to run the next available meeting. The meeting I run will have a
> 90-minute cutoff, and it will start on time according to this schedule:
>
> 8:00 People stroll in
> 8:12 Meeting officially starts
> 9:42 Meeting ends
>
> -- Asheesh.
>
> P.S. Let me be crass and capitalistic for a demonstration here:
>
> If each of us earns on average minimum wage, which in San Francisco is $9.79
> (*), and the meeting has 45 attendees, a decent guess by my standards,
> here's how much it "costs" in aggregate to have a meeting:
>
> 1 hour: $440.55
> 2 hours: $881.10
> 2.5 hours: $1101.38
> (that's where I left, 10:30 PM)
> 3 hours: $1321.65
> (that's where the meeting ended, 11:00 PM)
>
> Now, many of us are jobless, and many (like me) are thankfully currently
> employed at more than minimum wage. So those numbers are probably low.
> Assume that those of us at the meeting came on time because we thought it
> would start at 8.
>
> Given that there are four meetings per month, and membership dues are $80
> per month, here are those figures in terms of monthly non-starving
> membership dues. (Multiply by four, divide by 80:)
>
> 1 hour: 22 full dues
> 2 hours: 44 full dues
> 2.5 hours: 55 full dues
> (that's where I left, 10:30 PM)
> 3 hours: 66 full dues
> (that's where the meeting ended, 11:00 PM)
>
> In truth, these figures don't mean much of anything, since they're based on
> the bizarre hypothesis that we all should/could be working instead of going
> to the Noisebridge meeting. This is a P.S., after all. I just want to
> impress upon everyone that if there are 45 people in a room, we could be
> doing a *lot* instead of being at a meeting.
>
> As I see it, meetings are for only the issues that require everyone to be
> present — primarily deciding if we have reached consensus on something. It's
> okay to object; it means you get to discuss it further with people offline
> without taking up everyone's time.
>
> *.
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/25/BAAP14UAG2.DTL
>
> P.P.S. For this past Tuesday's meeting, I knew I would have to leave at
> 10:30. I left even a little after that, but apparently I missed a lot of
> excitement.
>
> P.P.P.S. I actually think 45 minutes ought to be enough, but let's start
> with 90.
>
> P.P.P.P.S. This week's meeting started a bit over half an hour late. That's
> $220 by the above metric, but by a more important metric: My leaving at
> 10:30 would have let me attend the whole meeting.
>
> --
> Q:      What do you call a WASP who doesn't work for his father, isn't a
>        lawyer, and believes in social causes?
> A:      A failure.
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>