[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