So I will take the liberty to kick off this lookback. Feel free to add your notes.
Here is what I found new this time
- the quiz was shorter
- a bit different pointing system for the Scenarios part
- mapping the discussion with Miro board
- discussion about the engagement of the meetup participants
- discussion about the outcomes of the meetup
The new quiz length was fine, I would say it was a bit better than previous 3 parts version, leaving a bit more energy for the discussion.
The pointing system was still a bit confusing, but at the end of the day for me the quiz is fun socializing activity, so I don’t really mind even if I lose points because of misunderstanding how the quiz works.
The attempt to track the discussion with the diagram on Miro board was familiar to me - I tried to do something similar in few of my team meetings. It all looked great and super interactive in my head, but 10 seconds in I could sense the “we’re gonna die in here…” in the air.
I think laying out diagrams from the scratch is a solo work requiring hours to rethink and rebuild it until it stars making sense - it’s never streamlined work - and so too complicated for a live meetup.
What works for me is bringing an already finished or at least a WIP diagram - you can quickly walk people through it and collect feedback on it. Much better for a dynamic meeting/meetup.
As proposed on the meetup I think it would be great to reopen the last part of the quiz after it is finished and start adding our own answers to it. Anyone should be able to add their own phrasing or vote for an existing one. This way everyone has a space to contribute, which I guess is important for community experience.
I am not sure how the split table discussions are supposed to work, but I am fully open to try, if there is an attempt to do it.
I think the result of the activity mentioned above is a great outcome of the whole event - it shows there was a part of the community and it worked together to come up with some answer(s) to the question/scenario.
I see as important some moderation that ensures everyone has an equal chance to contribute and everyone’s contribution is treated fairly. I would specifically avoid naming any opinion as “the correct one” - it is diminishing other contributions. The only way to put one answer above the other should be a fairly distributed vote, where again all can contribute equally.