collective organising - meetings

[rioters bloc]

so, in most of the collectives i've engaged in, discussion during a meeting follows a pretty standard formula.

for example:

* depending on how 'formal' the meeting is, we sometimes take minutes which are then sent out to those who couldn't make it via e-lists.
* we have a facilitator who... well, facilitates discussion :P if we have an agenda then they're the ones who give direction to what point is next on the agenda.
* we have progressive speaking lists, where people indicate to the facilitator if they wanna speak next and the facilitator writes their name down. the facilitator also sometimes bumps people up on the list if they haven't spoken before and the people before them have spoken a lot.
* if there's a lot of stuff to get through and not much time (at the start of the meeting we give rough estimates of when we'll have to leave by) there's usually a time limit imposed (usually 2 minutes).
* when discussion on one point has been going on for a while and we need to move on, the facilitator indicates that the call for last speakers will be taken during the next speaker, and after that no more speakers will be taken.
* if people are reluctant to speak or it seems that a coupla people are dominating too much, we go round in a circle and everyone has the chance to give their opinion.

anyways, how do people in other places conduct their meetings? what criticisms do you have of those rules^ or of your own? what suggestions do you have for improving meetings to make them not just more productive but also fairer so that a few people don't dominate? what can we do to make them as non-hierarchical as possible?

any ideas would be much appreciated :)

[apathy maybe]

I think you just summed up virtually every Enviro type group meeting. Just some random haphazard thoughts ....

Decisions are generally made on the consensus model. If there is no objections things go ahead.

We rotate the facilitator and minute taker virtually every meeting, though it does seem that there are some 'core' people who often do these roles.

Pretty much, people have to have a chance to speak, and not have their ideas immediately ridiculed.

If someone raises a question, sometimes the speakers list is ignored for that question to be answered (start a new one?).

Actually my major problem with having a too structured meeting type is that if an issue is raised it cannot be addressed immediately. So X asks a question, then Y, then Z, then someone can answer X's question, but then A asks a question, then Y's question is answered, then A's, but then B and C have asked questions. Crazy.

Umm, if you want more ideas on how to organise meetings, also see Parliament, which has a very complex meeting structure and a powerful speaker (chair for non Australians) (which you probably do not want).