[TriZPUG] Triangle Python User Group

[Josh Johnson]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Curt Stump <curt at curtstump.com> wrote:
> Hi TriZPUG,
>
> Since the group is in the process of rethinking its focus I'm going to go
> out on a dangerous limb here and provide feedback as a newcomer to the
> group.  I've attended only a few meetups.  Keep in mind, what follows is
> just my opinion.
>
> If you are interested in newcomers:
> 1) A name change is a fantastic idea.  I avoided coming for several months
> initially simply because of the Zope reference/focus.  I am seeking Python.

Yeah that's been a huge PITA for a long time - I've even called it the
"Triangle Zope and Plone User Group" accidentally a few times... but
at the same time I know people who were doing Zope and avoided
meetings because they didn't think a given talk was relevant to what
*they* were doing.

If a person can't read the charter of a group, look at the website, or
risk 2 hours to check us out, do I care if they ever show up? If
someone can't wrap their heads around the 'shotgun rules' or the
'do-ocracy' concept - what are they going to do to contribute to it?

We don't have a 'core' constituency[1], and folks have filtered in and
out - and that's just fine by me. I've hosted meetings where NOBODY
showed up but the speaker, and while that can be a bit demoralizing,
it's not the group's fault, or it's name. It's the people who didn't
come.

Anyway, I like the idea for name change, and I support TriPython 100%,
but let's not forget why the Z was there in the first place.... Wait,
why was it there in the first place?

> 2) Use the meetup website instead of mail lists and trizpug website.
> Benefits: A) the group looks bigger and more active to newcomers [and
> importantly to those who are considering joining], B) group communication
> will be easier than the mixed/top/bottom/full replies that now show up in
> long email chains.  Members would of course need to join meetup but that's
> pretty easy.  Then to attend specific meetups you simply click "attend" in
> an email that's sent to you.  It's a pretty easy way to increase your online
> visibility as a group.

I've singed up for meetup.com once, and have never used it, in fact, I
didn't even know we had a meetup group until recently. And I still
don't use it. IIRC, using meetup to organize our meetings costs money
- we don't have a treasurer, or collect dues - so if the person who's
paying for it can't at some point, we can't count on it being there.

I think we should use every tool we have available to publicize the
meetings. We shouldn't limit it in any way.  We could make it easier
to post to all of these things at once - to announce a meeting you
would log into the website, fill in the details, and bang: it goes to
twitter, facebook, meetup, the mailing list, a shared google calendar,
myspace (hahaha), etc, etc

That's something I bet we could fit into a 1-day sprint...

Now that I've mentioned myspace, that's another reason why I worry
about focusing too much on something that looks like it's the shortest
path to getting the word out to the most folks - what happens when
something falls out of fashion and nobody's listening?

> 3) Arrange a speaker in advance for each month.  Advantages: speaker has
> time to prepare a good presentation, and members will know about the topic
> in advance (and can publicize it).  Putting this information on meetup also
> gives newcomers an idea of what to expect over time.

The short response to this is: this is entirely counter to the spirit
of the "do-ocracy".

But in general I have many problems with this idea. First, who's
soliciting speakers? I think this is a core misunderstanding of the
group dyamic here - that we've got a 'president' or someone who will
always be there to do everything for us. We don't - we have a few
people who care very deeply about Python and this community, and they
go way out of their way to make sure the meetings happen. If they stop
doing that, then the group suffers or other people step up.

What would the solicitation process look like?

I agree having advance notice is always good, but some of our best
talks have been ad-hoc, or last-minute. I've never heard anyone
complain about the quality of our speakers.

Further, it's a very encouraging environment - I don't think I would
have ever given a talk anywhere if I hadn't started coming to the
group meetings and felt comfortable standing up in front of people I
felt were my peers.

This attitude that a speaker has to be "good", of particular interest,
or relevant scares the crap out of newbies.

 It also can cost us attendance - most people I know who make excuses
for not coming to meetings is that they aren't interested in the
topic. So if we pin down a 'good' speaker, they prepare ahead of time,
and we let people know a month in advance - the chance of it being a
no-show is higher than you think... In fact, IIRC, the meeting I
mentioned earlier was just like that: we had a great speaker lined up,
the talk was AMAZING, it was announced in advance, I was able to cover
for cbcunc being unable to facilitate... and nobody showed up.

I do agree that if we're using meetup, we should post details there,
but I disagree with the rationale. I don't want people to look at the
last 4 meetings and assume just because they were computer science
heavy that that's what we're all about. Or they were all about Plone
(or Django, or Pylons, or SciPy). Sometimes not having a history
prevents people from being prejudiced by it.[2]

> 4) Leave plenty of time for open discussion, lightning talks, etc.
> (something you are already doing).  This means there is always a reason to
> come to the meetups independent of topic.
Lets just leave them open ended, like we do now, but make more of a
point of it. We don't have a fixed agenda, and I think that's for the
best.

What we need to drive home to people is that there is ALWAYS a reason
to come to the meetings: participating in the community. You shouldn't
need anything more. I've sat through talks I wasn't that interested
in, and have been turned on to new things. I've had boring meetings
where the conversation at the after-meeting or the lightning talks
were mind-blowing.

I don't think we want to keep that from happening by trying to add
structure, just to help people who just don't 'get it'. What we need
to do is just help people understand that there's value in the
participation itself.

I think we can try to have more off-rotation get-together's to help
push this idea.

> 5) Connect with newcomers, even if this means spending a bit of extra
> effort. What I seek from a local Python group is not just a meetup once per
> month but people I can interact with about Python in the meantime (even if
> briefly via twitter or any quick means).  The trizpug group email list is an
> option for this, but I don't see the list being used this way (which I think
> is actually a good thing).  Summary on this point: existing members probably
> already have a local Python network whereas newcomers may not.  You can help
> them get connected, even by simply encouraging existing members to reach out
> to new members.

We usually mention the mailing list, IRC channel, and website at the
meetings. I don't know how much more we can do to reach out to new
people.

Again, I think this is a common misunderstanding of the dynamic of
this group. We *are* the local python network. If they're coming to
meetings, or subscribed to the list, or signed up for meetup, they're
connected.

> 6) Ask for feedback.  Quick feedback (even anonymous if desired) is easy
> with a tool like Survey Monkey for example (or even directly on meetup.com
> for simple polls).  Also, members could set up surveys to test practically
> any idea with the group, such as identifying potential speakers, desired
> topics, group meeting times or location preferences, etc.
I don't think this is a good idea AT ALL. My main concern with this
sort of thinking is the old saying about opinions. Given the
opportunity, anyone will chime in about anything, whether it's
constructive or not.

Hell, I didn't even go to the meeting that sparked all of this
conversation, and I'm chiming in now :D

But my other concern is the chilling effect of scrutiny. I don't want
people resistant to speaking because they feel they might get
criticized (no matter how constructive). I'm not one to sugar-coat
things and I appreciate blunt criticism, but I am concerned about
unfiltered opinions hurting people's feelings.

And then I really really don't want to see surveys about what people
think they want to see. Like I said earlier, I've learned a lot from
meetings that I didn't have a particular interest in, and I've missed
meetings that were right up my alley. Asking someone in a vacuum is
not going to be as productive as you might think.

Think about what you were working on or interested in a month ago vs
what you're doing/interested in now. I don't know about you, but if I
was picking meetings based on that, I'd probably never go.

Locations and times and such are also a can of worms. I'd rather just
encourage folks to find new places to host, or call a meeting on a
different day or a different time and see how it goes. If you ask,
you'll get opinions from people who probably won't ever come, even if
you follow their wishes to the letter.

I'd rather see things change because someone made the effort to make a
change. That will have more impact.

> Remember, this is just my opinion, I'm not planning to defend any of those
> points.  Take them if they make sense for your group, otherwise just leave
> them.  Also I'm happy to volunteer time to the group in areas where I can.
> Thanks for hosting the meetups -- I've enjoyed them so far and hope to make
> future ones.
I definitely appreciate your perspective, and I think you're not in
the minority - I just think it's hard for a lot of people to really
understand how this group works. Maybe with the new name and the
re-branding, we can make it more clear exactly how things work.

Thanks,
JJ


[1] We do have our champions, however! I'm not trying to minimize what
Chris and a lot of other folks have done for this community - but that
said, even our champions have other stuff going (or switch to Java or
whatever) on and can't devote time to organizing everything - but
what's great about us as a group, and I attribute this to the nature
of the group secondarily to the folks within it - is that even when
our champions can't be there to get us off our backsides and doing
things, somebody else steps up. New champions are emerging every day.
[2] Yikes, did I just say that?