Ubuntu Toronto Meeting Processes

[Dave Sullivan]

On 1/11/07, David J Patrick <djp at linuxcaffe.ca> wrote:
> On 11/01/07, Dave Sullivan <dave at dave-sullivan.com> wrote:
> > On 1/11/07, David J Patrick <djp at linuxcaffe.ca> wrote:
> > > On 11/01/07, Frank McCarron <erebus59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, laptops should be closed at some time or another.
> > >
> > > Rather than imposing a buncha rules, why not alter the environment to
> make
> > > the afore mentioned  laptopoloosa go away. What I propose we try next
> time
> > > is an arrangement where most of the tables are stacked in a corner and
> the
> > > chairs are a bit more audiencey. The human at the front has a table, but
> > > only one row of seating has a table. That table is for the person who is
> > > wikifying the minutes of the meeting, and driving the projector with
> related
> > > content. Someone prepping a presentation, or demonstration, could also
> be at
> > > those tables.
> >
> > Setting it up in a leader/audience style seems like it suggests that
> > one person (the person at the front) is in power and control of the
> > meeting, and I think it may even take away from the conversational
> > nature of the meeting. This works for a workshop, but I don't think it
> > works for a discussion group. But that's me.. what do you think?
>
>
> I think the central focus thing could really work for us everyone who wanted
> to had an opportunity to address the group. That would break the seeming
> autocracy.

I'm not sure that the group is, or seems autocratic. As it went last
night, we went through the agenda, and each person had their chance to
talk about what they wanted to. We can try the audience set up, but I
think in a discussion scenario, everyone needs to be able to see
everyone else, which is easier if you're sitting around a table.

On a different note.. if it does indeed seem autocratic, what about it
seems this way?  In a post-meeting conversation I had with Kim, he
described it as "so democratic that its almost an anarchy," which is
how I think of it. There's no formal structure, projects can be and
are initiated and led by anyone, but we all continue to work towards a
common goal, and gather because we have common interests.

> >
> >
> > Indeed, it isn't my intention to impose rules and regulations, but a
> > meeting code of conduct, or guidelines if you will.
>
> does ours differ from / extend the Ubuntu Code of Conduct ? or can we simply
> apply it ?
>

Being a team in the Ubuntu community, the Ubuntu Code of Conduct
applies to us as well.

> >  I find that often
> > while we are discussing something, there's two or three people talking
> > about something totally different and going about their business. What
> > could we do about this, or should we just leave it alone?
>
> we should not leave it alone, it's counterproductive. Lets build in times
> for on-topic discussion, and discourage it when a speaker has focus.
> In-the-round is fine for unstructured discussion.. if that's the desired
> outcome, but I think we should consider speakers taking turns in a
> results-oriented framework.
>
> just my $0.02 as the guy who rearranges the tables afterwards.

I agree whole heartedly. When one person is speaking, they should have
everyone's attention.

> djp
>
> --
> djp at linuxcaffe.ca
> www.linuxcaffe.ca
> geek chic and caffe cachet
> 326 Harbord Street,
> Toronto, M6G 3A5,
> (416) 534-2116
> --
> ubuntu-ca mailing list
> ubuntu-ca at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca
>
>
>


-- 
Dave Sullivan
dave at dave-sullivan.com
647-235-0328