
How to organize a study group, book club, online group or event - ingve
http://stephaniehurlburt.com/blog/2019/3/27/you-should-organize-a-study-groupbook-clubonline-groupevent-tips-on-how-to-do-it
======
vvpan
The idea that you should define a code of conduct first just sounds awful. The
best small gatherings are organic and informal. This just (I'll use a word
from somebody else in the thread) politicizes the whole thing. In other words,
if I am looking to join a group of 3-4 people and they have a code of conduct
already defined - I am just not going to come, simple as that.

In general the author seems to be into formalizing things. Organizing events
is a wonderful skill, but if you look like you are overthinking you'd be a
excluding a broad swath of people to whom formality is the opposite of
friendly warm relationships they are looking for.

For example: Every Wednesday I attend a board game night at somebody's house.
I know everybody there, but we are not necessarily all friends. Both sexes and
a range of ages are represented. If one day the hosts came up with a formal
set of rules I think Wednesday game night would be over.

~~~
hliyan
The code of conduct is not for you guys. It's for that one future bad apple
who will bring down everything you've worked hard to build.

~~~
echelon
We're all adults here. Why do we need to put gloves on and treat everyone like
they're high school students? If someone acts up, kick them out. That's
simple, and it doesn't treat people like pre-offenders.

Why are there rules for meeting in public? This isn't dangerous machinery;
we're not warning people against behavior that causes loss of life or limb. It
feels incredibly unwelcoming.

~~~
afarrell
> If someone acts up, kick them out

How does a group decide what “acting up” is? Who is actually making the
decision to kick them out?

When you have a group this is either large or long-standing, these questions
eventually come up. I’ve been in a 5-hour-long meeting that was the 2nd of 3
attempts to eject a mid-30s non-student from a University student computing
club. I fail to see how this sort of stuff is easy.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
> I’ve been in a 5-hour-long meeting that was the 2nd of 3 attempts to eject a
> mid-30s non-student from a University student computing club. I fail to see
> how this sort of stuff is easy.

Generally speaking, this is caused by too much policy, not too little policy
-- and adding an official code of conduct (which a university likely already
had!) isn't going to solve that.

~~~
drchickensalad
This type of long argument happens in 10 person discords who have literally no
policy. I don't think they're necessarily related.

------
nickjj
Some of my favorite meetups were the 2600 meetups from the 1990s (in NYC).

Just a bunch of people meeting up in a pre-defined public space with no real
agenda but at the same time everyone there had similar interests. Basically it
was a bunch of casual conversations with people who like the same things as
you do. No pressure or grand event. Just a bunch of people sitting at separate
tables or standing around in small groups for as little or long as you want.

Nowadays most tech meetups kind of suck. I used to goto more meetups but it's
always the same thing. A few minutes to mingle with people before it "starts"
and then you sit in silence while you listen to 1-2 hours of presentations
that feel like advertisements. Then things end with "mingle time" but by this
point everyone is drained by the presentations and half of the people leave
because it's already 8-9pm and some people have ~2 hour commutes to get home.

------
spectre256
For those who aren't familiar with her, Stephanie has been an extremely
helpful and resourceful voice on Twitter (and clearly, her blog) on a whole
range of topics:

\- Founding and running a small company

\- Working in/with/around the video game industry (good and bad)

\- Health, work life balance

\- Identifying and reducing bias in all sorts of situations (work, social,
online, etc)

\- Tasty, healthy food to cook with vegetables

She's well worth a follow:
[https://twitter.com/sehurlburt](https://twitter.com/sehurlburt)

~~~
emit_time
> She's well worth a follow Seconded.

------
afarrell
> didn't speak from their own experience using "I" statements

This feels like it is trying to teach a social skill through the medium of a
code of conduct. Is this successful at teaching?

I think one thing thats challenging is that social groups genuinely do run
more smoothly when people have more social skills. But spreading this
knowledge is hard because:

1) Lots of people feel condescended-to when you offer them the advice of how
to learn social skills. (See: Stephanie Hurlburt’s writing about unsolicited
advice, Lots of people on this thread expressing that they feel like this post
fails to treat them as adults)

2) Lots of people (like me) find Its hard to realize when there even is a
particular skill to learn and from there, hard to find guidance on how to
learn it.

People are reluctant to offer advice to group #2 because it upsets group #1.
People in group #1 get condescended-to all the time by people trying to help
out group #2.

------
maxheadroom
I was totally behind the premise until she referenced her Code of Conduct[0]
and I saw this tucked-away in it: " _I do reserve the right to boot anyone out
for any reason_ "

That, to me, comes across as conducive to an authoritarian atmosphere and not
a community atmosphere.

You can dress it however you wish but having a Code of Conduct and then saying
it matters not, when you arbitrarily feel like it, is the antithesis of the
entire premise of fostering a community atmosphere, in the first place, yeah?

Why not just be honest and have that single statement and be done with it?
Afer all, you _are_ the be-all and end-all of the group, it's code, the
decision-making, and subsequent results, yeah?

[0] - [https://pastebin.com/6kA93uPV](https://pastebin.com/6kA93uPV)

~~~
sokoloff
I see that single sentence as the default starting point for any small group.
The preceding sentences serve as clarification and additional
guidance/assurance of intent, but if in a small group (book club) setting you
wish to explicitly disclaim the ability to boot anyone for any reason, you end
up having to create a lengthy and still-gameable set of rules, itself a book-
authoring exercise.

~~~
maxheadroom
> _I see that single sentence as the default starting point for any small
> group._

This is a valid point of view, in the sense of coming from the perspective of
group ownership. " _I own this thing and I decide what happens in it or will
protect it or what happens to it or what direction it goes in or etc. ad
infinum._ "

I think this is an entirely different notion than a community perspective, in
which no one seeks flat-out ownership or determination (by and solely derived
from themselves).

Whilst this latter posit might be hard (if not nigh impossible) to implement
in small groups, I think it comes down to the approach: The dynamic changes
determined upon if its of the individual's interest or if its of the group's
interest.

This is because its recognised that the individual ego doesn't foster
community growth - however subdued it might come across - because (in an
actual community, such as here in HN) the group dynamic isn't interested in
things like individual ownership and explicit individual control of anything.

For example, we do not come here (to HN) because one voice posts or one
narrative predominantly prevails over another. In fact, some of us come here
in lieu of other sites (such as /r/) _precisely_ because we recognise that
only being exposed to a single narrative that aligns with 'x' isn't conducive
to any growth, in either the community or the individual.

In other words, I don't have to agree with you for us to exchange ideas and/or
learn and grown from our differing perspectives. Couple that with the fact
that your or my viewpoint isn't going to get the entire discussion thrown
under the bus (as long as we're being civil about it).

> _The preceding sentences serve as clarification and additional guidance
> /assurance of intent, but if in a small group (book club) setting you wish
> to explicitly disclaim the ability to boot anyone for any reason, you end up
> having to create a lengthy and still-gameable set of rules, itself a book-
> authoring exercise._

True but you're muddying the waters. The single sentence should be first and
the rest should follow subsequently because that single sentence explicit
infers that it can happen, even if the person in question is the embodiment of
the Code of Conduct. All that has to happen is that the organiser has a valid
reason (to themselves) to justify booting the person.

The community, as it were, can do nothing about it and it's tucked away in the
Code of Conduct that they've all agreed to, yeah?

So, whilst it may come across as a surprise and/or the community might feel
the exact opposite about what's happened, you start delineating the whole
precept between individual wants versus group wants.

This is when you get off-shoot splinter groups because they don't agree with
what 'x' group leader[s] did. It's a story as old as time and we keep
repeating it because we fall into the same traps over and over and over and
over and over again.

Put succinctly: If the individual supercedes the group (no matter who it is
but, in this case, it's almost always the organiser), then what you have isn't
a community in the true sense of the word. You've formed a group around an
authoritative figure under the auspices of it being a community.

Take a look at any communities around the internet and you'll see the
individual dies-away (in the authoritative sense) when true community is the
first and foremost priority. Ubuntu's Code of Conduct[0] would be a good
example of this. Their Appeals Process for IRC[1] also demonstrates that
they're concerned with the community perspective over the individual. " _Did
Skyler eject you because you made in typo in English? Well, that 's not quite
fair..._"

If you want to foster community (proper-like), you should start fostering the
community for the sake of the community (and not the sake of the individual)
from the onset.

Suffice to say, we will probably not agree on this and I'm sorry for typing a
novel in response. I'll shut up, now. :)

[0] - [https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-
conduct](https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct)

[1] -
[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess)

~~~
sokoloff
I suspect we largely agree (and no need to apologize for a lengthy on-topic
reply, of course) in the sense that I can't find any significant point of
disagreement above. In fact, the idea that if I kick Bob out of "sokoloff's
book club" and the rest of the group prefers Bob to be there, then a parallel
book club naturally arises that includes Bob, the other members, and "not
sokoloff". That's what the community can _and should_ do in response to an
other-than-benevolent dictator.

------
keiferski
_These days, I keep it simple with my small and short-lived groups and opt for
a "benevolent dictator" model-- all violations reported to me, I can kick
anyone out for any reason._

 _Whenever possible, inconvenience the people with money and make it
convenient for those in poorer areas._

—

Or, _How to organize an event in which you are surrounded only by likeminded
people and immediately kick out anyone that thinks differently._

I hope within my lifetime we return to a interpersonal communication model of:
“I’m a person, you’re a person’ sometimes we disagree or misunderstand each
other, but we both will try our best.” The current trend of over legislating
(by actual law or lists of rules) is becoming quite childish, in the sense
that we are no longer treating people like adults.

------
bluejellybean
Very helpful article, I especially like the idea of creating a code of conduct
as a way to set the setting.

~~~
bluejellybean
I'll reply to myself because of the general sentiment of the comments seem to
be about the safe space aspect. I read this article in a completely different
way, I read it as a way to set a tone for the rest of the events within a new
group. The examples she uses suite her groups and how she wants her groups to
interact. If on the other hand one wants to actively dis-encourage a safe
place(it's just an example, I am not advocating this), one could explicitly
setup their code of conduct to do so. If nobody shows up, okay so be it, but
if people do show up, congratulations you have now built a culture around
those specific ideals. Sure maybe this is a little much for a group of 3-5
people, but if one wants a large group with a specific style of culture to
form, setting some simple guardrails does seem advantageous. Perhaps 'code of
conduct' is to authoritarian but setting group ideals from the get go does not
strike me as necessarily bad.

------
meruru
Article is just a blank page for me, even after turning on JS and disabling
tracking protection. Luckily it's archived:
[https://archive.fo/Lxeqy](https://archive.fo/Lxeqy)

------
parliament32
> 1\. code of conduct

Yeah... hard pass. If the first thing I'm doing is defining a code of conduct
for a few (close) people with shared interests, something is very wrong with
the kind of friends I keep.

------
black-tea
I read this thinking it might be interesting because I'm organising a book
club at work. But it's more "how to make a safe space". No. My book club will
not be a safe space, it is open to everyone who reads the book.

~~~
afarrell
Including someone who interrupts and talks over everyone else and doesn’t
change in response to feedback?

~~~
llao
Of course not, just like my forum would not be open for people who post flame-
bait like yours.

Behaving like a decent human being is an implicit, obvious rule.

~~~
slyall
" I'm sorry why are you kicking me out? I read the book and I'm not doing
anything wrong! I guess I'm talking a bit more than some other people but they
are just quiet and I'm an outgoing guy. "

"Are you seriously implying that I'm not a decent human being because I talk a
little more than Bob? "

~~~
cf498
Which can be answered with a simple "get lost".

edit: Since some people seem to disagree, why not? I fail to see how its any
more complicated then those two words. You put in the effort to organize the
bookclub, you have the prerogative to say who can participate. If you dont
like that make your own bookclub. Forums have thrived on this concept for
decades and it only got complicated once they became business enterprises.

Maybe to phrase it more broadly outside of the organization aspect and for
general social interaction. You dont have a right to be part of a social group
or go to a certain party. If I dont like you I likely wont spend time with
you.

~~~
slyall
Now I realise there are multiple people in this thread but the bookclub went
from:

"My book club will not be a safe space, it is open to everyone who reads the
book"

to:

"Behaving like a decent human being is an implicit, obvious rule."

to:

"a simple 'get lost' [..] you put in the effort to organize the bookclub, you
have the prerogative to say who can participate "

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yup.

This is a way any and all small-scale social interactions work, and have
worked since forever. Pushing a CoC onto this is trying to override the
natural way small groups of people form, replacing it with a formal structure
that's not fun for anyone except people better at lawyering and - to borrow
FakeComments's excellent term - social LARPing, than actual interpersonal
skills.

