[group-organizers] python user group name

[Brandon Rhodes]

Jonas Geiregat <jonas at geiregat.org> writes:

> We're starting up a new user group for Python user in Belgium.

CONGRATULATIONS!

This is a wonderful step, and I hope that your rough start will not
prevent this group from being a wonderful resource both for programmers
in Belgium, and also for those who are not yet programmers but who might
some day want to learn.

(Also, I should say: your country has nice beer.  It's my favorite.)

> The first thing we wanted to have was a name to identify ourselves
> with. ...  At this point I started to get irritated, but because I
> don't want to push myself forward as any kind of leader or dictator I
> said ok, let's have another poll.

My experience with Python Atlanta, which I led for several years until
moving away last December, was that user groups actually *need* leaders
who step "forward."  There are simply too many small decisions to be
made for every one to be voted on, and too many programmers who seem
psychologically predisposed to become angry and intransigent every time
a debate is opened to which they are eligible to contribute.

Let me contrast a "dictator" with another figure: the "host" of a party
or event.

You should think of a "dictator" as someone who exercises control that
people cannot escape.  I would say that a "dictator" makes decisions
that people MUST follow, because those people have been maneuvered into
showing up for something that they then CANNOT escape - either because
they are physically imprisoned, or because their emotional investment is
too high for them to leave.  A dictator would take a programming meeting
that was supposed to be about one topic, and suddenly ruin it and make
everyone spend all the time on another topic in which no one but the
dictator was interested.  A dictator would let someone invest hundreds
of hours in the users group, only to then throw away their work because
of a flippant decision to do something different.

A "host" may superficially look like a dictator, since the host of a
gathering or party will often have to make many decisions, alone, simply
so that the party can happen: perhaps choosing the name, or perhaps the
venue, or maybe deciding which of several speakers get scheduled this
month.  But the host is very different:

* A "host" is satisfied with their small domain of control - the little
  event that they are managing and to which they are trying to welcome
  others - so the host does not attempt hostile takeovers of other
  activities if people are doing them well.

* A "host" is up-front about all of their decisions, and never
  manipulates people by needlessly changing things at the last minute,
  or misrepresenting the kind of gathering that they are running.  They
  say, "Thanks for your input, everyone - HERE is where we are meeting
  this month, but please continue to let me know about your ideas."

* A "host" does lots of listening, and then tries to make the decision
  that will let the host's event be of the greatest benefit possible.
  Sometimes the host really does not know what to choose, and can put
  things up to a vote.  Sometimes the host knows that they lack
  expertise, and lets, say, the JavaScript people in the group choose
  the speaker who comes during "JavaScript Month."  But the host has to
  remember how many quiet people, who never post on the mailing list,
  will un-subscribe and leave forever if the mailing list - that they
  had hoped would teach them about Python, and help them know what
  speakers are coming next month - becomes a loud and upsetting forum
  where a few loud people keep debating things without end.

* I found that it was almost always better to delegate ("Doug tells me
  that the meeting location is difficult for many people to reach, so
  for July he is going to choose another meeting location for us that
  we're going to try out for one month!") instead of asking for a vote.
  Voting is a very poor way of making decisions, and is generally
  appropriate only for situations where a group of people are going to
  be FORCED to abide by a decision (maybe they live in a country and the
  country needs laws that are binding on everyone), and so they all need
  a say in that decision.  But in general it brings out the worst in
  people: they become trivial, argumentative, insulting towards one
  another, and typically a very few people invest a crazy amount of
  energy - and might be the only ones who vote - while everyone else
  becomes upset and then sad.

Think of yourself as the host of a party: you want people to be happy,
you want people to be helping you put up decorations and giving talks
and helping you find good places to meet.  But all of those people are
busy and need someone who can listen to everyone then say, "This month
we are going to try THIS," so that people can put their energy towards
something productive - making "THIS" as awesome as it can be this month
- instead of putting energy towards endless debates that, by their very
structure, mean that a large number of people are going to lose when
each debate concludes.

(As an aside: LinkedIn groups in Atlanta tended to be full of people who
wanted to look important and argue, because, well, if they had useful
jobs and lots of friends, they wouldn't be sitting around on LinkedIn
trying to look big and important!  So I hope you can soon move to a more
open forum like a Google Group, where you won't have to cater to the
people who happen to be maintaining profiles on LinkedIn.)

> ... This poll still running but it seems the name will be
> pythonbelgium.

This is a difficult situation.

It would, I believe, have been within your rights to simply name the
group "pyBug" to begin with.  Or to have stopped with the first poll and
said "The name is PyBug, it's time to move forward and start actually
meeting!"

But since you let the second poll start, it seems to be that you should
abide by its results - otherwise, you have done one of the things
"dictators" do: you have invited people to invest time and effort into
something (the second poll), then thrown it away.

If I were you, I would register the second name and consider the money
you spent to be the price of an important lesson: the lesson of what can
happen when you have the time and energy to try hosting something, then
decide to let other people - who are not stepping forward like you are -
to debate endlessly about things like names.  Compared to what other
people sometimes pay to learn this lesson, you have probably purchased
it rather cheaply. :) (Unless you bought the domain for 20 years or
something!)

Either way, make a decision, thank everyone for participating, and move
on towards actual meetings that people will benefit from.

Try to be a "host", who listens to ideas, but then takes responsibility
for making a decisions about when and where and how the meeting will
take place, so that people have something concrete to contribute towards
instead of only endless debates that only a few people can win.

I will tell two stories from Python Atlanta.

First, we used to meet in a big fancy classroom with a built-in
projector and stadium seating.  The group was VERY quiet, and everyone
sat at least two seats apart (Americans are very shy), and most people
left after the talks were done without ever having spoken to anyone the
whole evening.

Then, one month, the big classroom was reserved, so we met at an
informal meeting place instead, a few people brought beers, and there
were couches and little tables and people had to sit close together.
The group - which had ALWAYS been quiet - was so loud that I had to
SHOUT to start the meeting!  It was wonderful!

So, without asking anyone, I canceled our classroom and got us a room at
Manuel's Tavern in Atlanta, because that was the kind of group I wanted:
a group that had energy, and talked together and made friends, and where
a newcomer could come and have met three or four people by the end of
the night, instead of only hearing the talks and then slinking out
because it was a classroom and no one felt like they could speak.

I did not need a poll, or any votes: I knew what kind of meetup I
wanted, and I was happy to take responsibility for the decision and
explain to people why we were trying out the new meeting place, so that
they could tell me later whether they though our meetup could be
improved even further.

My second story:

Someone named JR wanted a different kind of meeting, in addition to our
monthly meeting where everyone listened to talks: he wanted people to
sit around with laptops, hacking on projects, and having the experienced
Python people help the newcomers.  So once he had chosen a location and
a night, I happily advertised it on the meetup group, and mentioned it
at every meeting.  Only a few people came at first, but he kept doing it
every two weeks, and after a while he had a regular group coming.  I let
him be the "host", and make all of the decisions, for those other
meetings - I was delegating, you see - while I kept making decisions
only for the main meeting.  That way, each meeting had a clear mission,
and focus, and people knew who to go ask if they had an idea about how
one of the meetings could be better.

And, delegating the other meetings to JR prevented me from getting
stretched too thin, and it - I hope - prevented Python Atlanta from
becoming the "Brandon Show" where everything would have had to be about
me.

I hope that you will be happy, even with a group named "pythonbelgium",
and that your group becomes a strong and happy place where, because you
or other organizers make a few decisions to get things going, everyone
else is able to contribute talks and thoughts and ideas and programming
classes, until you are a large and powerful force for education and
camaraderie among your nation's programmers.  Good luck!

(And now we get to hear about what the other organizers think of my
crazy advice!)

-- 
Brandon Rhodes      brandon at rhodesmill.org      http://rhodesmill.org/brandon