[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization
jim
jim at well.com
Fri Apr 10 00:49:09 UTC 2009
bravo!
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 17:37 -0700, Shannon Lee wrote:
> 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."
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list