You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AlexeyM comments on [Draft] How to Run a Successful Less Wrong Meetup - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 29 March 2012 06:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (26)
Tags: draft meetup

Comments (26)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 March 2012 10:58:17PM 1 point [-]

Some comments:

  • I would change the order of role descriptions section and the following section on starting a group.
  • I think there could be more on actually starting a meetup group.
  • The "retaining members by being a social group" subsection is too long and has several paragraphs on maintaining a healthy discussion structure rather than the social aspect. Maybe splitting the subsection could help?
  • It is obviously great to aim to have a group which is "doing something" and is not just purely social (although nothing wrong with that either!) but I would caution against too much formality at the early stages of a meetup group. A pleasantly friendly group can be equally efficient, I believe, but it takes time to develop into such a group, and formality may be counterproductive. (By formality I mean things like prescribed roles, forcing a structure onto meetups early on, quenching discussions that "stray away" from an initial topic etc.) Allowing people to bond first and then increasing the "productivity" of the group by some agreed formalising changes may be better.
  • I wrote a post on my experience of setting up a meetup group, which may be of interest: http://lesswrong.com/lw/bc2/setting_up_lw_meetups_in_unlikely_places_positive/
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 April 2012 10:27:55AM 1 point [-]

I would change the order of role descriptions section and the following section on starting a group.

This occurred to me as well. I changed it for the (as-yet non-public) version 4 of the document.

The "retaining members by being a social group" subsection is too long and has several paragraphs on maintaining a healthy discussion structure rather than the social aspect. Maybe splitting the subsection could help?

Hmm. Is three pages really too long? I felt that discussion about how to keep the atmosphere pleasant and keeping the discussion structure healthy would be a natural fit for a section that says you should aim to make people friends with each other - since those are sort of requirements for people becoming friends in the first place.

It is obviously great to aim to have a group which is "doing something" and is not just purely social (although nothing wrong with that either!) but I would caution against too much formality at the early stages of a meetup group. A pleasantly friendly group can be equally efficient, I believe, but it takes time to develop into such a group, and formality may be counterproductive. (By formality I mean things like prescribed roles, forcing a structure onto meetups early on, quenching discussions that "stray away" from an initial topic etc.) Allowing people to bond first and then increasing the "productivity" of the group by some agreed formalising changes may be better.

This is an excellent point, thanks. I added the following to the "The first meetup" section (though I'm not sure whether that was the best place for it):

"Excess formality can be counterproductive, especially in the early stages of the meetup group. One may be tempted to actively do things such as prescribing roles, forcing too much structure to the meetups, killing discussions that “stray away” from the initial topics, and so on. The risk is that this may feel off-putting or even silly to people who would have preferred to start off more informally. It may be better to let the participants bond first and then agree upon some formalized changes later on."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit