To Ingrid and BJ et al, Just back from traveling and have caught up in my reading of the chat list. Great ideas you shared! A few questions:
1- When you put topics in rows, would it quicken the voting process if topics were placed in the numerical order (i.e. by the number given to each report as it got typed or put on the wall)? I think I would still want the "multi-name/single issue" situation as Harrison calls it sorted out by initiators before the vote because participants do come up with that concern as you invite them to vote. This would not be the clustering of natural groupings but the joining of quite identical topics. 2. I'm usually not looking for linear formats but I appreciate BJ's instructions to vote in rows so dots can be counted faster without creating cross-eyed malaise. 3. I also like his idea of inviting the whole group as oppose to only initiators to cluster by natural groupings. This resembles the other process where people write on priority topic sheets, the related topics they think should be added but this way, you have a greater chance of avoiding related topics falling through the cracks. It may also be more dynamic if people are together clustering topics as oppose to writing individually. The draw back is that some may want to put a topic at different clusters but you could give the instruction that a topic may be included in different clusters by writing it on new sheets. What would be in your experience a large size group where this would become inpractical because of sheer numbers?...although I know the reality is that not everybody will go to the wall. 4. Ingrid, when you announced the topics of the cluster: what if a cluster did not get top votes. Do you still invite people to action plan on it or are you focussing at this point only on the top priorities ? Are priorities set by counting the total number of votes each cluster now has? Or is the action planning focussed not on the cluster title necessarily because that may be very general but on the specific issue that received the most votes? Conversely, if an issue received many votes but cannot be clustered with other topics, I understand that it goes for action planning as one of the priorities. What if a cluster has 3 top priority issues according to dot votes. Would you not want to create 3 distinct action planning groups unless topics can fall under the same plan? 5- What I like about your approach is that people will be action planning on priorities as opposed to any topic for which they have a passion.This is OK is the OS is for a gathering that is not centered on one organization. At this point, it makes sense to pool the energy towards organizational priorities. It makes the assignment of sites with post-its much more simple. 6- I like your idea of signing up to a cluster page (a new page since the topic pages have signatures of the first day). This would work as it is done as a distinct step from voting and if the group is not too big or if there is enough time (all factors that caused problems in my experience). What I particularly liked is that they sign up with a "2" for their second choice. It gives notice to others that bumblebees may come later. I collected that info at the walk about (to look at action plan reports) but if there is more time for action planning, meaning bumblebees are more likely to appear, it is encouraging for the initiator to know at the outset that there is more interest even if only one or a few show up. 7- Other words to replace "champion" which has been overused in the work environment of many of my clients: Keeper of the spirit or Action chiefs or Action leaders, or coordinators. Still looking for words. 8- I like your way BJ of giving everyone the suggested approach sheet or action planning sheet. I think it addresses the concern Harrison expressed about too many details and it makes sure that the process does not lie only in the hands of the initiator, it's shared leadership. It's great to build on all these ideas. Thanks for sharing. Diane
<<attachment: dgp.vcf>>
