On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 22:50:47 Philip P. Patnode wrote: > Two points about what I liked - > > 1. I like the meeting area arranged in a circular fashion, like knights of > the round table. Works so much better than the random seating of previous > meetings.
Yes. As I was setting up the chairs earlier today, I was reminded of the first meeting of Maker's Alliance that Chris, Ricky, and I went to two years ago - back when they were restarting the group at a local community center. We all sat in a circle; nobody was rising above anyone else; Everyone could see eye to eye. In fact at that meeting, the moderator kinda just sprouted up from a random newbie who was there for their first time (Joe Goerse, if I remember). There was no differentiation between who was actually involved with the first iteration of MA and someone who moved to Cleveland the week earlier. > > 2. I like the fact that the meeting lasted less than two hours. One hour > is a good target length for an organized, effective meeting. Agreed. I think that tonight's duration was a significant improvement over previous meetings. I would like to consider a meeting with some more intense time keeping (i.e. any), or perhaps being more forceful in getting people to wrap up. A lot of us tend to ramble and restate the same idea a few times. Perhaps an alternative to time keeping, which can quickly cut someone off when they don't feel that they have articulated the idea, is to limit things to just one sentence or question at a time. This is concise enough for the note-taker to write down, and encourages everyone to be more specific and thoughtful with what they say. Another option that I was hoping to use tonight but didn't because I think it may have been a bit too much for a meeting that hasn't been done in this style in a long while is to have a simple queue of questions and statements. For example: * Alice states the problem they perceive. * Alice then states their suggested solution * Everyone is given a turn to list any questions or concerns they have. Nobody gives any answers yet! * Once that round is done, everyone addresses each concern or question that is on the projector screen line by line. It shouldn't become a Q&A with the proposer. I feel that there were a few points tonight where it ended up being a rapid dialogue between two people, and nobody else could contribute with suggestions. > > And, two points about what I did not like - > > 1. I did not like the late starting time. If the meeting is scheduled for > 7pm, then start the meeting at 7pm. I think part of that was the general unwillingness of those present to play note-taker. I have an idea for next week that I plan on trying out involving a lot more group assistance of the note-taker and asking that everyone be a lot more vigilant about watching what gets written down. After the meeting, I talked with our guest note taker and she commented that she was at first very overwhelmed with the pace of the meeting and didn't expect it to actually get that detailed. I think it would be incredibly helpful if we paused after each person's turn to both reflect and make sure that the note taker got things down right. The downside to this is that the meeting might take a while longer, or we won't be able to get through as much content as others would like. Alternative suggestions and ideas are welcome. > > 2. I did not like the assorted members and non-members who were conducting > conversations in the back area, near the meeting, but not part of the > meeting. It was happening throughout the meeting, but got increasingly > worse towards the end. Their actions were an interference and distraction > to the speakers and listeners alike. That kind of selfish behavior is rude > and unnecessary and should not be tolerated. I was hoping you would say > something to them about the noise level and/or ask them to leave the area. If someone is being rude, please call them out on it! I was sitting on the very far end of the room so that I could easily keep an eye on who was entering and leaving the discussion. I actually had no idea that those folks on the other side were so disruptive. My assumption was that because nobody was saying anything, they weren't being distracting. My interpretation of the role of moderator is exactly whats on the tin. The moderator is just there to make sure everyone gets along and that the meeting is productive. I'm paying a lot of attention to the discussion at hand, making sure that people who raise their hands are called on in the appropriate order, ensuring that the discussion doesn't veer off into a completely different direction, keeping an eye on the minutes to make sure everyone's point is written down, and watching the general vibe of the meeting. As I found out tonight, keeping track of all that stuff leaves very little room in my head to watch outsiders. > > On a final note, you did a fine job as moderator tonight. Thank you, Philip. I appreciate the feedback. > > Philip > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Torrie Fischer > > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > > Everyone was incredibly Excellent tonight. > > > > Thank you to all who participated. Feedback and comments on my moderation > > are encouraged and appreciated. > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@synhak.org > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
