[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting Optimization

[Shannon Clark]

A few quick thoughts (I'm the other Shannon,Shannon Clark not Shannon Lee)
One thing I have done in many business meeting contexts which ALWAYS helps
keep the meeting focused, and usually helps keep in on time, is to have what
I term Agenda item Zero - which is a QUICK w/o details reading of the
agenda.

Followed by a consensus that the agenda, as read, is still good - this is
then the time to agree to a reworked agenda (i.e. - hey someone has to leave
early so let's get to her point soon, or someone isn't here so let's shift
that point to later/drop it from this week's agenda)

I do this BEFORE long form agenda items such as introductions. The point is
to create common consensus on what will be discussed - and to note how much
time is expected to be spent on each part, including introductions.

This should be quick - and I highly recommend actually reading it aloud, not
just saying something like "now everyone read over the agenda on the wiki" -
the point is that by reading it out loud and setting the shared expectation
of what is on the agenda, in what order, people have then a shared sense of
what has to be dealt with.

And everyone at the meeting then has a chance to consent to that order.

To make this work it helps to be simple and straightforward about what is on
the agenda - but don't get into details or a discussion of what each point
it (that is for that part of the agenda).

I'm in the category of members who generally avoid the meetings, in no small
part because they are large and clearly long running. If I feel passionate
about a specific issue I'll show up - but mostly I want to be supportive,
but a weekly, 1-2+ meeting is a lot of time commitment.

Shannon
Founder, Nearness Function - stratigic consulting, brand advertising &
sponsorships
Twitter - rycaut
Blogs: Slow Brand - http://slowbrand.com
Searching for the Moon - http://shannonclark.wordpress.com


On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20090409/071703f8/attachment-0003.html>