We have received several suggestion on how to schedule the Future Thoughts segment of the F2F. First, a recap:
* Peter was the person who suggested the "Future Thoughts" agenda item, so I listed him as Moderator. He suggested ideas be submitted anonymously for a freer discussion. * Ryan offered this comment: "However, one minor note, it's unclear how you might propose to capture sufficient information so it's ambiguous as to who suggested it - that is, achieving the property the card introduces, of masking who suggests what." * Gerv suggested this procedure: "I think perhaps this issue can be mitigated by having people know that this process is coming up, and consider the wording of their cards carefully with their colleagues beforehand, with this potential issue in mind. Another option would be to have one trusted person (one of the auditors? :-) who received all the cards at the start of the day with names on, sought any necessary clarifications, and then read them out (without reading the names) in a session near the end of the day." * Eric Mill responded: "I'm happy to perform a neutral third party role and handle cards and get clarifications from individuals without revealing identity, if it's of any help. I think this is a great idea." * Ryan suggested different ways to schedule this, including: "Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now, prior to the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes and allow time for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several discussion slots on Day 2 to explore those items identified as either controversial or as shared interest, so that we can more rapidly make progress. This might make it more productive than, say, if I were to request several agenda slots for what Google considers as high importance and future direction." I think that generally makes sense - collect Future Thoughts discussion items in advance (so the Moderator can sort and organize them for better discussion), use a slot on Day 1 to introduce the thoughts and get initial input, and use a slot on Day 2 to do some initial planning if consensus topics emerge from Day 1. QUESTION: Do we really need anonymity for the ideas? In the alternative, would people be willing to just send their thoughts to Peter (as moderator) before the meeting so he can anonymize and combine the suggestions, and create a list and agenda for that part of the program? Maybe Peter could even distribute the list and agenda in advance so people can think about it instead of watching a movie while they fly to Raleigh. So here is a proposed procedure: * Peter develops a full statement of what the "Future Thoughts" segment will be about (so we are all on the same page), and drafts and distributes a related questionnaire so members can submit their "Future Thoughts" to him in advance of the meeting. [Alternative: People can send the completed questionnaires to Eric to anonymize and send to Peter, if that's an issue.] Peter can organize and arrange what he receives. * Day 1: Each item on Peter's List/Agenda is introduced and discussed. [We can also allow the people who suggested an item to explain their thinking first, if we choose not to make anonymous.] Peter can sort through the Day 1 discussion results, and create a prioritized list of items with most support which may be ready for action. * Day 2: Peter leads a discussion of "next steps" for action items from Day 1. Does this work?
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
