Mastodawn

@douginamug mostly it takes long because ppl aren't willing to learn building a structured conversation fitting the goal.
Having meeting which are mainly designed to learn and reflect in communication is usefull.
...issue: ppl who need that propably the most might not join xD

also think of dependencies, priority and how much having this done would serve the community.

@paulfree14 actually, I don't think this is because people aren't willing to learning. I think it takes long because of single threaded conversation: I think that it's a hardware limitation of humans.

@douginamug ppl are by design unwilling to learn if there's not enough interest in. Your body just doesn't relieve much of the hormons you need for your memory./learning process.
Many ppl have a lack of interest in learning how to improve the own style of communication in a way everyone can benefit from it. (...just an subjective asumption of mine)

@paulfree14 that seems to be a fair enough starting assumption. However, even in a group of people who are willing to learn, there are still the hardware limit of two ears, two eyes, one mouth, one brain, no reliable telepathy, etc. This in turn limits group conversations: you can't get everyone to simultaneously express their opinions and find the best solution. If you express opinions sequentially, it takes long and there's a lot of biasing. I just wanna play around with solutions 😉

@douginamug
that's biased on the idea it's usefull to have every conversation with the full group.
What you want is a group able to design and use a process facilitating their goals and values. Listening to everything is mostly not part of :-p
example:
So collect topics/ideas/questions/informations...go through a process of dependency/priority/usefulness if solved. Create subCircles going deeper.
Share out come with larger group. (decide once all ready)
Go back to step one.

@paulfree14 Actually, I don't have that board you mention: I'm totally for decentralized meetings in sub groups and topic prioritization! However it's often not possible to separate global and localised issues nearly into different meetings every time and sometimes specific solutions are very useful for specific issues this thing with timing for events for example.

Out of interest, do you respond simply to what I write, or do you imagine other people who might be reading?

@douginamug
I argue that it makes sence to split most meetings into subgroups once group has size x.
What x is depends on the ppl itself and the theme.
And the subgroups could be for example go just deeper into thinking about what kind of answers are missing to solve problem z, form questions and so on and bring it back into the bigger group.

It's like having a brainstorming inbetween.

(thought could be of interest for more ppl)

@paulfree14 again, I think small groups are good. However, even in small groups (less than 8) the above issue can be observed and the suggested proposal could be useful.

Are there any methods you particularly like for finding event times in groups?