Deliberation

How hard could it possibly be to get 10 people with different backgrounds and strong personalities to agree?

Timing concerns

How much is front loaded? (i.e., effort put in beforehand)

Lateness: nominate a proxy or send your preferences beforehand. If you do still show up, keep in the background out of courtesy.

Sometimes go for hours before it became streamlined

Balance between business-like efficiency and approachable friendship.

Trends in choices

Things people run into that are emergent of what the group funds and don't.

Having a checklist of what adheres to your chapter's vibe

Setting trends

First responder sets the tone of the ranking when it's on a transparent sheet. Might prefer it being closed until vote.

Champions of project. Can follow up with group about questions.

Toronto Process

1. Rank top 5-10 on spreadsheet

Submissions not voted on are killed

2. Elimination Round: People call for submissions low on the list to be killed (called falling on your sword)

Majority vote to kill

Down to under 10 at this stage

Recap list in spreadsheet

3. Clarification Round

Anyone ask for clarity about a submission

People can "make a case" for a favorite

4. Final Vote

Conducted on a spreadsheet

Rank best

Top 3 emerge

5. Discussion _if needed_ 6. Selection : will anyone quit if we choose this project?

Importance of being prepared

Submitting the rank a few days before the meeting so the dean has a chance to go through it. Can't just do it on the way to the meeting.

Ranking top three via website.

Lots of ownership felt for each project initially. Now less of an issue with voting

Having submissions organized nicely. Nice collected PDF to look at. Bring those notes to the meeting.

You commit to be to the meeting. No commitment beyond showing up and giving money. Don't have something immediately after the gathering so you can languish if you like.

Voting while socializing

Some people mix it up, drink and eat and discuss. 30 minutes of process, 2 hours of total time.

Some groups just plow through it, don't socialize.

Most of the parties are planned at the relaxed social time.

"reckless granters" - drunken toothfairy

Less distracting to meet in a conference room rather than a bar. Control over your environment. Gallery or hackerspace or somewhat.

Having deeper connections means the group is also stronger to further independent goals.

Bringing in prior favorites

Inviting nominees when the awesome is low.

Trying to have a system was cumbersome.

Things that were top ranking get carried forward.

Contact them before moving forward with it.

Engaging with hopefuls

Some people call

Some people come pitch. Use whatever format you like.

Important that they come and connect with us and each other. Then the trustees have access to awesome up and coming folk, too.

Do something that helps them stick in your brain.

List top three on blog, not just winner. Gives an endorsement of sorts.

Awesome hours as a way to help hopefuls give a good presentation (this is a debated topic)

Tag things with Awesome stickers.

Banner for sites if they like, link back to blog entry about their participation/win for legitimacy

Random Bits

Legality issues

Carry over list added back in

Not being overly attached to a thing. Don't have to discuss every single one.

Follow up after receiving a submission inviting them to party.