I've been following this thread with great interest -- this is a subject that fascinates me, and that I've put a lot of thought into. In particular, I looked into a variety of ways to approach introductions when working with Sarah and Lori Byrd Phillips to plan GLAMcamp DC.
The consistent theme here, I think, is a desire to balance two things: (1) a desire for everyone to be introduced to everyone else, and (2) a desire to create a space for more intimate and participatory connections, that go beyond a sentence or two. At GLAMcamp DC, with some solid advice from Eugene Eric Kim (CC'd here), I ended up choosing: (1) a general BRIEF introduction, paired with: (2) a more structured activity that allowed people to go into more depth in smaller groups. I know that adding this kind of structure to an event can feel cheesy and forced, but I think it's worth considering anyway, if it helps you to achieve objectives that are in tension. Without a bit of structure, and with 100+ people (or even 30) in a short period of time, a less-planned "everyone listens to everyone else" format means that everybody in the room is spending A LOT more time listening than talking. I blogged about how I came to this particular format here: http://wikistrategies.net/glamcamp-dc-plan/ But the more useful links, probably, are the ones on the specific formats Eugene suggested to me (any of which might be worth considering for the WikiWomen's Lunch as well): - World Café <http://www.theworldcafe.com/method.html>: Small groups converse, in several rounds, mixing up groups between rounds, and taking notes to report back. - Fish Bowl Dialogue<http://www.unconference.net/unconference-methods-fish-bowl-dialogue/>: A few people start a conversation in the middle of the room. The rest listen. An empty seat invites anyone to join the discussion at any time; but when one person joins, another must leave. - Merging introductions<http://groupaya.wikispaces.com/Pair%2C+quad%2C+octet>: This is the method I chose. People pair up for a few minutes, then the pairs combine, and then the groups of four combine. During the process, participants move from introducing themselves to exploring concrete ideas. Then, each group of eight reports back to the whole group. I hope these ideas are useful -- and am very interested in any other formats people might have experience with, or comments/questions on these ones. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Valerie Aurora <vale...@adainitiative.org>wrote: > I do really like having these kinds of introductions - I am always > amazed by the breadth and variety of interests that people have and it > is a good lesson for me about my stereotypes and assumptions about > women I haven't overcome yet. It's also a great way to find people > you want to meet. > > But I agree it took too long. That introduction format worked really > well at AdaCamp DC - for a variety of reasons that didn't apply at > that lunch and I wasn't even aware of during the AdaCamp intros. You > can get through 125 introductions of that form very quickly if you > have: > > * Good models to start the introductions off by adhering strictly to > the (very short) format > * Strict reinforcement of the format whenever people start to get wordy > * Two microphones so you don't have mike-passing time in between intros > > I first saw this style of introduction at FOOCamp, which has it down > to a science, but it's harder than it looks, as we found. :) > > My two cents is that the lunch should be longer! I like to schedule > at least an hour and half. :) Overall, I was thrilled with the whole > lunch. > > -VAL > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Gillian White <whiteghost....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I agree that 125 introductions is not a productive or fun way to use a > short > > amount of time. In this instance, the process halted all conversation and > > created a no-win situation for members of the audience - either try to > > concentrate on an impossible-to-remember roll-call, or ignore the > speakers. > > Neither is good and leaving the room would be even more impolite. > However, > > it is good to have a problem that results from success! > > > > A solution depends on what the purpose of the meeting is. If the purpose > > changes from a lunch meeting, different approaches could be used but > > multiple meetings or more scheduled talks should probably become strands > of > > the conference. The trick is to balance structure and lack of structure > in > > line with the principles and purpose. > > > > Assuming the meeting continues to be a lunch meeting, I think the > principles > > that need to be remembered for such an event involving such a number of > > people are: > > - there is not much time and that time has to allow for eating (IMHO that > > does not mean wandering around trying to hold food and talk at the same > > time); > > - anything repetitive is bound to be tedious; > > - since there is a major conference in session, anything formal, other > than > > a welcome from Sue, would either not be a lunch meeting or should be > added > > to the conference agenda itself; > > - flexibility and a degree of spontaneity are necessary. > > > > So, one suggestion for a Wikimania Wiki Women's lunch meeting (and I am > sure > > there are other possibilities that will be considered between now and the > > next conference) is to print up multiple copies of some theme labels for > > people to grab and put on their table as they go into the lunch room. For > > example, there could be labels for tables for women who want to: > > - meet new people/conference participants; > > - talk about the conference sessions; > > - NOT talk about the conference sessions; > > - continue an unfinished earlier discussion; > > - plan some women's meetings to be held during pre-allocated times during > > the conference (eg the women's edit-a-thon suggested above). > > There are many more possible but you get the drift. > > > > If multiple rooms are available the same procedure could be applied in > > advance and rooms allocated for lots of smaller lunch groups. That sort > of > > thing depends on the venue but breaking it up means missing the > opportunity > > for a gathering of everyone together. Also, requiring a forced choice for > > women who have a range of interests and commitments is something to > avoid. > > > > Whiteghost.ink > > > > > > On 26 July 2012 07:01, Orsolya Gyenes <gyenes.orso...@wiki.media.hu> > wrote: > >> > >> Yes, we really didn't expect over 120 women (double as much as last > year) > >> and I think it was right to get to know each other and learn where we > all > >> coming from and what we are interested in. Usually that doesn't happen > on > >> this list. > >> > >> Maybe we could organize a female edithaton during the Hacking Days in > HK, > >> if there's a need for it. > >> > >> ~Orsolya > >> Deputy Program Chair > >> > >> > >> 2012/7/25 Carol Moore DC <carolmoor...@verizon.net> > >>> > >>> From > >>> > http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Feedback#Other_meetups_and_meetings > >>> > >>> The Women's Luncheon on Saturday was something I was very much looking > >>> forward to, but it fell short of my expectations. I was enjoying > bonding > >>> with the women at my table, asking the speakers about their > presentations > >>> and hoping to form some more solid relationships with veteran and new > >>> Wikipedians alike. Being required to sit back quietly while 125+ women > each > >>> stood up to introduce themselves felt like a waste of an opportunity to > >>> build a stronger female editing community. Knowing that the women are > >>> passionate about sharing was good, but wouldn't have been more to the > >>> purpose to encourage networking so all the women in attendance would > be more > >>> inclined to stay active and recruit knowing there was a pool of > support they > >>> could personally draw upon? [[User:Samarista|Samarista]] ([[User > >>> talk:Samarista|talk]]) 17 July 2012 (UTC) > >>> > >>> I personally liked the intros. Perhaps suggest a common topic or two > >>> people can discuss at tables? > >>> > >>> Or have a separate meetups - a couple at different times, perhaps with > >>> different themes. That might answer her concerns ? > >>> > >>> Note that in the feedback section two of us mentioned that annoucements > >>> of meetups needed to be better. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gendergap mailing list > >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gendergap mailing list > >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > -- > Increasing the participation of women in open technology and culture > http://adainitiative.org > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
