Hello @reeflings,
I would like to share a reflection about the way we schedule urgent and important meetings like the ones with the architects, for which there is currently a poll (see Presentation of first sketch by the architects). This is not a criticism of the way the poll is set up or presented, only a matter of trying to get more clarity on how we do this.
There are two things that are not fully clear to me:
. 1. What does “not being available” mean? Does it mean “I can’t make it because I have my weekly yoga class / because I’m having dinner with a friend”? Or does it mean “I’m having surgery / I need to go to a funeral and so I really can’t be there?”
My concern is that we have different interpretations of this question, and that for some people it means the first option. If that is the case, it means that it is unlikely to find a date in the first week that is proposed, which means we lose time.
My proposal would therefore be that we make “participation means power” more explicit, and that we poll for dates that people really can’t make it even if they really want to.
Of course we will still all have a different interpretations of what “I really can’t make it” means, and that’s ok. What matters to me is that at least we try to bring more clarity about the poll, and that we collectively try to prioritise to make it to the end of the avant-projet stage as soon as possible.
Just to be clear though: in my opinion the “I really can’t make it” definition should only be used in the next coming months as a matter of exception (urgency to get to the avant-projet, so that we can recruit new people), because we really want to continue going to our yoga classes and friendly dinners as soon as possible.
. 2. Do we really want to make it a matter of numbers only? In the example above, 7 out of 12 full members filled in the poll within four days (which I am saying without any judgement about those who didn’t fill it in btw). Of these 7, one can’t make it at all (Alberto), and another can’t make it the entire first week (me).
If we only look at the numbers, the date that comes out is 4 October (6 votes), which is in about 3 weeks from now. If you take out Alberto and me however, possible dates become 23 September (4 votes, 3 households) or 25 September (4 votes, 4 households), which is next week.
In this particular case, I would propose that we would bring in a bit more communication, and for example just ask “hey Alberto and Lee, would it be acceptable to you if we had the meeting without you?” This at least allows the both of us to say “yes” or “no”, rather than just assuming that we want to be there, which creates more possibilities to find an earlier date.
My proposal would therefore be that we don’t only decide based on numbers, but also on what is best for the group, on “participation means power” and on what people actually prefer themselves.
In conclusion, I am concerned about losing time because we are trying to find dates that suit everybody, and I am trying to bring in a bit more clarity about how we organise polls. To be clear, this is not a criticism of how the current poll is organised, just a reflection based on my concerns and my own particular case (being away and blocking an earlier meeting).
My proposal for concrete elements to be included when we organise a poll for an important meeting would be the following:
-
Include the invitation to be generous with our availabilities, and only block the dates that we really can’t free our schedule (how everybody then interprets this is up to them)
-
Include an option like “you should go ahead without me if needed”, but equally the option “I would really like to be there if possible”, so that we can go beyond a numerical vote and widen the number of options.
Any thoughts?
