[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Ka-Ping Yee]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Ed Hunsinger wrote:
> 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"?

This is an excellent idea.

I offer some thoughts below.  I am not yet an official member, so please
feel free to discount my suggestions appropriately.  I don't intend to
tell everyone what to do, just to offer some ideas that have been fairly
useful in my experience.


1.  I have some experience with processes like this (having lived in a
      Berkeley student housing co-op for seven years).  My co-op didn't use
      consensus, but I attended many consensus meetings at another co-op that
      did.  The typical process for calling for consensus is:

        - "Requests for clarification?" (brief pause)
        - "Minor objections?" (brief pause)
        - "Major objections?" (brief pause)
        - "We have consensus.  Moving on..."

      (And by "brief", I mean just enough time to glance around the room
      for hands.)  In this particular system, a "major objection" is a
      block, and three minor objections equals one major objection.


2.  I second what various people have said about the impossibility of
      facilitating and holding a position on an issue at the same time.
      When we come to a topic that the facilitator would like to express
      an opinion on, the best thing is for the facilitator to temporarily
      hand off the job of facilitation to someone else for the duration
      of that agenda item.


3.  In all the Berkeley student co-ops, including mine and the co-op
      mentioned above, we used a system of hand signals:

      - A quacking hand means "I want to comment."  When you're called on,
        you can say anything.

      - A curled finger means "I have a question."  When you're called on,
        you can ask a question about the issue, and someone who knows the
        answer can respond.

      - A raised index finger means "I have a point."  When you're called
        on, you can state a single point of pure fact (NOT AN OPINION) or
        point of process.

      The facilitator would call on people roughly in the order hands were
      raised, EXCEPT: points pre-empt questions, which pre-empt comments.

      We did need to be strict to keep people from abusing the "point"
      signal.  But, it was nice that this allowed requests for clarification
      to pre-empt general discussion (thus reducing confusion early), and
      relevant facts to pre-empt all (thus resolving issues without debate).

      We snapped our fingers to express support while someone was talking
      (it's audible but soft enough not to disrupt the speaker).

      I know, maybe this all sounds way too hippie to y'all, but this did
      work out pretty well for us.


4.  My housemate David is a long-time resident of the above-mentioned co-op,
      and he's had a lot of experience facilitating consensus meetings there,
      from the mundane to the contentious.  I described last night's meeting
      to him, and he's expressed interest in giving a workshop on consensus
      and meeting facilitation.  How would you folks feel about that?



-- ?!ng