[AnnArbor.pm] [A2PM] Interest in meetings?

[Bryan Smith]

>
> The reason you're getting private replies are because the mailing list
> is configured to set reply-to to the original sender, not back to the
> list.


Thanks for pointing this out.

Getting close to two years ago, we switched over to a weekly ad-hoc
> arrangement. Someone (who I'll call the anchor) would go to some place
> with wifi and {food and/or drink} and would be there for a solid
> window of time. If anyone else wanted to show up, they'd know there'd
> at least be the anchor there.


This is similar to an idea one person sent me, with the addition of an
anchor. I would rather see the group go a lower-maintenance route like this,
and we'd still have the flexibility to have more formal meetings if someone
had a topic.


Bryan

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason you're getting private replies are because the mailing list
> is configured to set reply-to to the original sender, not back to the
> list.
>
> I'm way out here by Grand Rapids, so I'm not likely to make it to A2PM
> meetings, but I can offer some insight to meeting format transitions.
>
> GRLUG once used a meeting == presentation format. It led to us having
> meetings rarely; while we wanted to meet up, we didn't have any solid
> presentation ideas. Some meeting plans would fizzle from a lack of
> volunteers to speak.
>
> Getting close to two years ago, we switched over to a weekly ad-hoc
> arrangement. Someone (who I'll call the anchor) would go to some place
> with wifi and {food and/or drink} and would be there for a solid
> window of time. If anyone else wanted to show up, they'd know there'd
> at least be the anchor there. Weekly attendance ranged from just me to
> ten or twenty people. No set topic, just chatting about what we wanted
> to and what we had in common.
>
> No one location and time works for everyone, but for those who can
> show up when/where someone decided to anchor, it's pretty fun. Earlier
> this year, I stopped anchoring (I'd moved it to what turned out to be
> a very bad spot, and attendance plummeted), someone else took it up,
> moved it from Saturdays to Wednesday evenings, and it's been going
> strong again. We've been seeing regular attendance from 10 to 20
> people.
>
> You'd have to figure out what works best for you guys, but this has
> been working out pretty nicely for us. It becomes a social atmosphere
> of technically-inclined people who listen to who they want to listen
> to, talk about what they want to talk about, and have a coffee or beer
> together. (Put that way, it sounds kinda like barcamp, but it's much
> smaller, and there are no schedules.)
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Bryan Smith <besmit at umich.edu> wrote:
> > I've received some private responses, so there is some interest.
> > Based on how we've organized meetings in the past, someone needs to
> > volunteer to present, or we need to start a public discussion (on the
> list)
> > about an alternative format for the meetings. (In the past,  meetings =
> > presentations.)
> > Do we want to meetings to be less formal? (I.e., show up without an
> > agenda?)
> > Please send out your ideas to the list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bryan
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Bryan Smith <besmit at umich.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've received an email asking about the group, and was wondering whether
> >> there is any interest in starting meetings up again. Particularly, is
> anyone
> >> interested in presenting anything?
> >> Bryan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AnnArbor-pm mailing list
> > AnnArbor-pm at pm.org
> > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/annarbor-pm
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> :wq
> _______________________________________________
> AnnArbor-pm mailing list
> AnnArbor-pm at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/annarbor-pm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/annarbor-pm/attachments/20111023/f06b4c80/attachment.html>