JNMay87 1199751589|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Who should facilitate?
I think a good facilitator is crucial. We has discussed this at the meeting, so I won't elaborate, but do we have any ideas?
What should be our structure for the meeting? Should there be one?
Personally, I think a good structure to the meeting is fundamental. Without one, people are constantly asking what should we do next? Rather than talking about the issues we want to discuss. I think having an order to our meeting in which we devote the beginning of the meeting to set up some sort of agenda would be a great way to keep the meeting on task. I think people may get frustrated with a lack of structure. Just because we are anarchists (mostly), that doesn't mean we can't assume the obvious without fear of being too authoritarian. This is and will always be the case in any social setting and we have to understand, when something is a good topic to debate, and when something probably obvious to everyone or at least, nobody cares to contest it.
How should we manage our time?
I know that agendas can be too optimistic. I think that we should limit time on topics, and then if there is still a demand to discuss this item, we can discuss it further. Any thoughts on this… pros? cons?
