Most progress is accomplished in small groups: There is strong consensus that group discussions rarely result in updating, even if they are fun. Conversations of 2 or 3 (maybe 4 at the most), seem to produce the most useful insights. This is why spending time together bilaterally is incredibly important to group development. When a handful of people are all interested in a particular topic and practice it together, they form a de facto working group which allows them to iterate rapidly and then teach it to the rest of the members.
This is important and oft-overlooked. Particularly for the more introverted sorts, smaller group = win. In my experience, large meetups (10, 20, or even more people) are a lot less satisfying than smaller groups. Perhaps four or five people is ideal.
Speaking broadly, there seems to be an inverse relationship between conversation quality and group size.
Large meetups are okay, but having a single big conversation which gets hectic because people have to struggle to be heard, and gets you angry at the one inevitable loudmouth who doesn’t realize he’s dominating the conversation, is not very good.
This is important and oft-overlooked. Particularly for the more introverted sorts, smaller group = win. In my experience, large meetups (10, 20, or even more people) are a lot less satisfying than smaller groups. Perhaps four or five people is ideal.
Speaking broadly, there seems to be an inverse relationship between conversation quality and group size.
Large meetups are okay, but having a single big conversation which gets hectic because people have to struggle to be heard, and gets you angry at the one inevitable loudmouth who doesn’t realize he’s dominating the conversation, is not very good.