[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Shannon Lee]

Some notes on process.  This is long; it's about how I plan to keep the
meeting snappy, but this email, itself, is by no means snappy, so be warned.

I plan to lead the meeting Tuesday, and here's how I plan to do it.  We'll
all be able to see how it works out, and hopefully having this plan laid out
in advance will give us some basis for incremental improvement.

First, the "before the meeting" stuff:

I've gone through and cleaned up the agenda page for next week's meeting:

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2009_04_14

I've re-arranged the order of things a little bit, which I will get to in
the next section, and I've gone through the notes from last week and picked
out things we agreed we'd want to talk about consensus on -- specifically,
in this case, three of the four points from the membership committee meeting
are potential consensus decision issues, while the fourth point, "timeouts"
or "temporary bans from the space" is going to be discussed further in the
membership meeting on Tuesday at 6, and then more findings presented for
discussion in the general meeting.

I added my name to the page, so everybody knows who to complain to when the
meeting hasn't started on time, and a space for the "note taking person" --
who I assume will be David M, but whoever is doing it should add their name
to the page.

The night of the meeting, I'll call everyone to order (probably around 8:15,
which seems like the traditional time) and we'll start with the Context --
that is to say, what Noisebridge is and what we do.  I'm going to ask
someone else to do Context; if you feel inspired to do it, put your name in
the Crew section of the notes, otherwise I'll just call on the regular who
looks least prepared to do it. After Context we'll do the names, where we go
around the circle and each give our name and a (very) brief sentence of what
we're up to.

Announcements includes two set sections:  "project updates," where people
get to show off their ongoing projects, and "what's going on at
Noisebridge," a rundown of events coming up in the next week.  Other
anouncements should be added to the agenda if you want me to read them,
otherwise I'll ask for anouncements from the floor at the end of this
section.

After Announcements, we'll do Consensus Items.  This is an innovation, in
that I've intentionally split it off from the traditional Discussion Of
Agenda Items.  It has been confusing in the past to have items we can have
consensus on mixed in with stuff we're potentially arriving at consensus on
for next week, and stuff we just want to talk about, because of the "we
don't decide things the night they're introduced" rule; this way we can get
actual decision making out of the way right up front, and have a bounded
portion of the meeting where scary things might happen.

Someone needs to own each Consensus item, and take charge of leading the
discussion towards consensus.  My role as meeting facilitator is to get done
with the meeting; if nobody is going to speak for a particular item, I'm
going to plow right past it.

I do not intend to limit discussion on Consensus items, but I do intend to
try to have fairly straightforward agenda items in place before the meeting
starts, so everybody knows in advance what we're consensing on.  Once
discussion has taken place, I'll ask the person taking notes to read back
the consensus statement that we've arrived at, and repeat that process until
the person reading the notes back doesn't provoke more argument; if that
doesn't happen in a reasonable (and reasonably snappy!) amount of time, or
if the Consensus item has become different enough from where we started that
we're effectively discussing it for the first time, I'll move us on to the
next item, and we'll move that item to next week's discussion section.

Ping's suggestion below about raising fingers is a lot like the fist-to-five
scheme I've seen work other places, where you raise a fist to indicate that
you're feeling like blocking the item, one figer to indicate that you see
changes that need to be made before you're ready to consent, two fingers
means that you've got minor issues that you want to discuss, three fingers
means you're not totally happy but willing to go along, four fingers meaning
consensus is reached and five fingers meaning you're willing to lead action
to implement whatever change is under discussion.  I want to be clear that
I'll watch for these signals, and let them inform how I feel like we're
doing on getting to consensus, but I don't necessarily see them as a formal
part of the process here; so feel free to also just pipe up and say how you
feel.

I intend to do the membership binder after Consensus Items, because it
requires consensus, so these items seem to go together.  After the
membership binder, the part of the meeting where we can actually make
changes to stuff is over.

After the membership binder we will have open discussion of issues we
haven't seen before, or that are not ready for consensus.  Again, someone
besides me needs to own each issue and be willing and able to lead
discussion on it; if nobody speaks up, or if someone simply starts rambling
and doesn't show any sign of stopping without a forcible interruption, I'm
going to move on.

I intend that, while we're not consensing on a formal way on the issue, if
we intend to come to a consensus on the issue at hand, we at least come to a
consensus on the point to put on the Consensus agenda for the following
week; to that end, I'll follow much the same process as above, repeatedly
asking the secretary to formulate what he feels the groups' consensus is
until either nobody objects, or it becomes clear that we don't have a point
of consensus.

Not everything requires formal consensus; sometimes we just need to talk
about stuff.  I'll do my best to keep things that don't require everybody's
attention brief, and refer as appropriate to smaller groups.

The last thing I intend to do at the close of the meeting is call out the
name of my successor, the person who will run the following week's meeting;
in this case, I believe Jeffery volunteered?  In any case, I intend to find
out who I'm handing off to before the the meeting starts on Tuesday the
14th, and I intend to formally hand off the role before the end of the
meeting.

Again, I don't mean to dictate that "this is how the formal process should
go," I simply want to put it out there such that, first, people can point
out the error of my ways before I attempt this; and second, so that when
things inevitably go horribly wrong, we can compare what actually happened
with what I was trying to do and form some conclusions about the unique
particular combination of poor planning and sloppy execution that led to my
failure :)

Lastly.  I want to point out that the length of the meeting is directly the
result of the number of items on the agenda and the amount everyone has to
say about each item.  If Tuesday morning rolls around, and it looks like the
agenda is another nightmare session, you might consider what on the agenda
can be put on a future agenda (yes, we can plan more than one week in
advance!  wooo!), or perhaps needn't be discussed at all.  Additionally,
think very carefully about your point, and phrase it clearly and succinctly;
every point of unclarity is ten minutes of discussion.

Thanks for reading, and thanks to everyone who has been adding their ideas
to this thread.

--S


On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Ka-Ping Yee <noisebridge at zesty.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>


-- 
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20090409/587d5b88/attachment-0003.html>