[probablypower]

This basically touches all the points that I came here to write, except I want to add:

- Check-in: Give each attendee 10-30s to just say how they're feeling, either in general or about the topic. This can do a lot to make individuals more likely to engage in the meeting, but also to help you assess the mindset of those attending and anticipate issues.

- Framing: Beyond having a defined agenda and goal, it is also important to establish some 'rules' early on. For example "If I feel we are off agenda, I will interrupt and ask that we freeze the discussion until the end of the meeting, if we have time left".

- Check-out: It is important that you don't equate silence to mean acceptance. Sometimes people will disagree with the results but refrain from raising the point as they feel alienated in the meeting or don't want to 'open it back up'. By asking people to each explicitly state if they're happy with the meeting results or if they feel some tension, you can get hints at where these issues may be.

These points may seem soft, but they are honestly incredibly valuable I find. They've saved me a lot of time with a few people who would otherwise stay silent then send me a 'derailing' email a week or two later.

[Bluepacsky]

The idea about check-in is awesome! Someone mentioned it further down but "dead audience" is a problem, people often start to code or do other things during meetings. This is only gotten worse during the pandemic. So this feels like a great way to start a meeting without taking too much time! Thank you for the idea. Do you do this in every meeting you run? Do people in your meetings get tired of it after reoccurring meetings (for example doing this every meeting seems less exciting)?