3 ms·

Discussion is cheap. If it is on topic, saying something stupid quickly and then rolling back the conversation is a far more efficient use of your time. You do

by lugg 8y ago

Discussion is cheap. If it is on topic, saying something stupid quickly and then rolling back the conversation is a far more efficient use of your time. You do need to pick your audience. Some people really struggle with this style of conversation. The rapid depreciation/substitution of facts can be a tad tiring. But for those that can take it, this is essentially the same as writing things down but it's faster and has the added benefit of at least one other person "checking your math" as you go.

Klathmon 8y ago
Don't get me wrong, a realtime discussion is extremely important in many cases. When brainstorming or talking through bugs or building something collaboratively, it doesn't get any better than an in-person or video meeting. But when it comes to more complicated details, one-off questions, important decisions, or bringing the "results" of an investigation to a group, text is just better a lot of the time. I can't count the number of times that a decision was made verbally in a meeting only to find that half the meeting misunderstood the decision or can't remember details about it the next day. Or going to discuss a complex bug/problem and having to spend a significant amount of time talking about the "setup" to the problem rather than the problem itself. It's those cases where spending 5 minutes writing the question up and letting people read and understand it before jumping into a meeting, or even something as simple as following up a meeting with a written summary of the important points made can be very powerful.
- joshmarlow 8y ago
  > I can't count the number of times that a decision was made verbally in a meeting only to find that half the meeting misunderstood the decision or can't remember details about it the next day. I've had the same experience, but I tend to follow a hybrid approach; bring up everything you can think of in the meeting, then immediately following up with an emailed recap of what was agreed upon. It helps make the verbal decisions explicit and iron out additional details.
- ska 8y ago
  I think what you are saying has a lot to do with particular meeting culture(s) and dynamics, rather than anything specific about the medium. Many people would be stunned by the idea that a written followup (e.g. minutes) would represent a novelty - or for that matter circulating context beforehand (e.g. an agenda) with time to ask clarifying questions offline would be, either.

by lugg 8y ago

Klathmon 8y ago

Don't get me wrong, a realtime discussion is extremely important in many cases. When brainstorming or talking through bugs or building something collaboratively, it doesn't get any better than an in-person or video meeting. But when it comes to more complicated details, one-off questions, important decisions, or bringing the "results" of an investigation to a group, text is just better a lot of the time. I can't count the number of times that a decision was made verbally in a meeting only to find that half the meeting misunderstood the decision or can't remember details about it the next day. Or going to discuss a complex bug/problem and having to spend a significant amount of time talking about the "setup" to the problem rather than the problem itself. It's those cases where spending 5 minutes writing the question up and letting people read and understand it before jumping into a meeting, or even something as simple as following up a meeting with a written summary of the important points made can be very powerful.

joshmarlow 8y ago
> I can't count the number of times that a decision was made verbally in a meeting only to find that half the meeting misunderstood the decision or can't remember details about it the next day. I've had the same experience, but I tend to follow a hybrid approach; bring up everything you can think of in the meeting, then immediately following up with an emailed recap of what was agreed upon. It helps make the verbal decisions explicit and iron out additional details.
ska 8y ago
I think what you are saying has a lot to do with particular meeting culture(s) and dynamics, rather than anything specific about the medium. Many people would be stunned by the idea that a written followup (e.g. minutes) would represent a novelty - or for that matter circulating context beforehand (e.g. an agenda) with time to ask clarifying questions offline would be, either.