In Ideological Abuse, Busyness, and the Importance of Rest, Ozy Brennan writes about (among other things) Quaker meetings:

In the Anglosphere, most Quaker Meetings for Worship (i.e. Quaker church services) are unprogrammed. To the uninitiated, unprogrammed Meetings seem more like meditation sessions. Everyone enters a room at a particular time and sits in silence. Occasionally, someone will stand up and speak extemperaneously for a few minutes about some spiritual or ethical topic (a “vocal ministry”). After an hour, everyone stands up and goes to get coffee.
[...] very often, thirty minutes in, I notice something about my life that’s completely obvious, and yet that I’d missed for weeks or months: [...]

(a lot of the stuff I'm cutting here is good but I don't want to just reproduce the thing wholesale, go read it)

I'm thinking about doing something like this myself in my own home, probably with someone else I can talk into doing it with me for accountability purposes. One thing I notice trying to come up with something like this is just how many degrees of freedom there are in designing the details:

• An hour seems kind of long, so maybe I'll start out with half an hour.
• Every week? Every two weeks? Every day?
• The thing where people spontaneously get up and talk sounds interesting but also quite disruptive? Do I actually just want to talk about stuff at the end? If I keep the extemporaneous stuff, I can imagine wanting to reply to what someone says, but that seems like it would devolve into a discussion and effectively end the session. It's not even obvious that that's a bad outcome, but I think I don't want it. Should I have no replies at all? I considered replies but no counter-replies, but I think that's probably not sustainable.
• Do we summarise at the end at all? Maybe that puts pressure on people to come up with Content? Maybe it's good to let people have a time in which they don't come up with anything? Part of what I'm interested in exploring here is the idea of slowing down my usually relentless internal narrative, in which case the biggest success would be thinking nothing at all. But maybe even that's not in tension with having something to say at the end.
• Is there some kind of way that I should be nudging people to spend their time? Is it actually best to be as unprescriptive as possible? Does that risk people just feeling aimless and restless and doing nothing? Can I have prompts that aim to fill space without replacing anything that already fills it, or is it inevitable that any prompts will tend to crowd out what comes naturally?

Some of this will naturally self-correct: I think I'll have some perception of whether a given length of time is obviously too short or too long (although even there part of me suspects there's value in giving myself an uncomfortably long time, in the hope of not being able to sustain avoiding my problems for that long). But really testing and evaluating all the freedom here, especially with the tendencies for interactions between them (e.g. spontaneous discussion might be less disruptive if you have an hour than half an hour, because you have more time to "get back into it"), feels impractical. I think I have a harder time than some people accepting that I'm just going to make a bunch of guesses, and for many of them, never find out if I was right or not.