Re: [Gendergap] Wikimania Feedback Comment on luncheon
Good ideas, Pete. I have used them in seminars and they work when there is a large number of people and there is a goal to be achieved. If such approaches are going to be used at Wikimania though, I think the name of the function needs to be changed. Any kind of Women's Lunch brings to mind free conversation, conviviality, even a kindly sort of chaos. So if structure such as this is added, prospective participants need to be aware that active participation is expected and their brain power will be publicly called upon. Hence, it may need to be called Wiki Women Working (the acronym would be good!) or just Women's Meetup or something like that. In either case, this would also affect the schedule. That is, such a meeting should not conflict with other scheduled meetings (Chapters, tech or language meetings, for example). People will need to know whether to expect a seminar or just lunch. Perhaps there is a role for both, but they shouldn't be conflated. Whiteghost.ink On 2 August 2012 12:10, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Dialoguehttp://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 introductionshttp://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
Re: [Gendergap] Wikimania Feedback Comment on luncheon
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 Dialoguehttp://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 introductionshttp://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.orgwrote: 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
[Gendergap] Wikimania Feedback Comment on luncheon
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
Re: [Gendergap] Wikimania Feedback Comment on luncheon
Hi Carol, There is always room to improve, and I wish I had more time to devote to planning the event, but, by the time a few of us were able to get organized (Gayle, Sue and I) we were knee deep in Wikimania and AdaCamp activities. Perhaps it's my fault for failing to reach out to the community (delegation, something I'm working on professionally and personally!) I did hear that a lot of women wished they could have gotten to know those around them in a mixer type atmosphere. Perhaps in Hong Kong we have a chance to try out a few different things. We also didn't expect over 100 women, so that was quite a shock to see for me, and I believe it threw myself, Sue and Gayle for a loop. I also liked the intros - and I do think about half way through a few of us were like oh crap, this is going to take a while! I'm not sure what the situation will be next year in Hong Kong - the venue, the space, etc. I'd love to see a more mixer like atmosphere perhaps than having us on lock down at tables. I'd love to see more WikiWomen step up to the plate and perhaps help plan the event collaboratively next year. (nudge nudge wink wink ! :D) Hindsight is 20/20 though, and we can only take what we learned from this event and explore ideas for next year in Hong Kong!! -Sarah On 7/25/12 6:40 AM, Carol Moore DC wrote: 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 -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
