[ST] [SA] Debrief Meeting Agenda

[The Marvelous MERV]

On Monday, 29-01-07, Ben said to me, Skip, and the List:
>   To repeat what I send in my announcement:
>
>"After each Division's reports, there will be a chance for others to
>bring up issues (good or bad) like we did at the Gripe Session".
>
>   We want to hear what people have to say.
>    ---Ben


At Monday, 29-01-07 03:31 PM, Ben said to PatV and the List:
>   "After each Division's reports, there will be a chance for others to
>bring up issues (good or bad) like we did at the Gripe Session"
>
>   We want reports, but we also want people to point out things we
>missed.  What we don't want is 16 zillion people debating each issue.

But the important thing to note is that in the original post, Ben said:

>   While a detailed report is important, please just present a summary
>at the meeting.  After each Division's reports, there will be a chance
>for others to bring up issues (good or bad) like we did at the Gripe
>Session, but except for requesting a clarification, please try to
>resist discussing issues.

"please try to resist discussing issues."  THIS is my issue.

Should we spend hours at the debrief, on SuperBowl Sunday no less?  Hell 
no.  Should we stifle an opportunity for face-to-face discussion with many 
of the rank and file staff who often make an effort to get to debrief when 
they can't feasibly make it to all concom meetings?  I don't think that's 
advisable.

At Monday, 29-01-07 Chris (who is neither Cris nor Kriss) said:

>Discussion is for finding solutions. Solutions should be found by the
>divisions that had the problems when planning for next year, not when
>debriefing for the current year. Any level of staff should be able to
>at least e-mail suggestions to the relevant divhead, if not attend
>meetings in person. There are - or at least should be and have been -
>all-staff meetings during the planning period.

I believe this first statement is in total error.  Discussion is NOT for 
'finding solutions' in this context; it is for sharing thoughts, generating 
new ideas, and for making people feel like their efforts are appreciated by 
the actual human people around them (which is something you just can't get 
through posting reports through email).  Solutions should be found by the 
next year's divisions; but the insights of those who lived through the 
problems can offer insight that is useful -- and those of the division in 
question are not the only ones who lived through the problems, nor are they 
the only ones who are likely to have good ideas about how to deal with the 
problems.  And while email is useful, it does NOT replace the human 
connection given by being able to look someone in the eye and tell them 
what's on your mind.

>Debrief is for identifying problems, not hashing out solutions. Not
>only because it will take an inordinate amount of time - which it
>would - but because the staff of the current year's con are in no
>position to dictate what the next year's staff should do, so such
>discussion is essentially futile.

True.  You don't solve or plan a con at a debrief.  But you do plant the 
seeds there.  After all, the debrief can be thought of as the first concom 
meeting of '08.  The discussion is SO NOT FUTILE, for the reasons stated 
above, and probably several others.

Imagine the person who works Ballroom tech who has a sudden insight into a 
treasury issue.  Or the Events staffer who makes a suggestion that sends 
the Hotel Liaison down the right path.  In My Opinion, the debrief is one 
of the few times you get the whole staff (those interested, at least) 
together to listen, talk, and share ideas -- one of the few times staff 
works together as a whole, instead of on the single little focus group that 
most staff who are not concom work on.

>If you have a suggestion rather than a gripe, then e-mail it to the
>appropriate head when they are appointed, or bring it up on the staff
>discussion list, or bring it up at one of the planning meetings.

IF you remember that tidbit that was said, AND you remember your 
suggestion, AND if all the division and department heads are all already 
named, AND put on the email aliases.  Or, you might be able to say 
something where the conchair is listening, and notes taken, and forwarded 
to the appropriate 'head at the right time.  You may get the actual sense 
that a human being heard what you had to offer, instead of the idea being 
lost in the Ether.

And quite frankly, if you have a Gripe, it's nice to hear why it happened 
that way, and for some one to say 'what if . . . .' and see where it goes.

To float back up to what Ben said, I wish Arisia had 16 zillion 
volunteers.  Should we debate "each issue" for hours on end?  Heck 
no.  Should we allow ourselves the lattitude to follow fruitful 
discussions?  Yes.  Should the next year's conchair keep the reins, and 
recognize when we start to follow ideas down ratholes, and pull us back to 
the agenda?  absolutely -- but don't pull those reins tight prematurely, is 
all I say.

Nothing against Tem, Ben, or Chris -- I just disagree with the philosophy 
of Con debreif presented, and these are my reasons why.

Which is why I suggest a debrief in parts.  Does that stretch things out 
over 3 weekends?  Sure it does.  Is that terribly convenient?  No, but I 
don't want to sit at an MIT desk for 8 hours straight, either.  However, it 
is one way to get everyone an opportunity to speak their mind, and not 
break ourselves.

In Service,

Merv

Tom Murphy
The Marvelous MERV
			
ICQ:  22396777        marvmerv at rcn.com        AIM:  PackApe

"Have you got time to do my hair?" -- Mal to Inara, 'The Train Job,' _firefly_

"You STILL can't add my EMail addresses to commercial lists without my OK."