4 ms·
> it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out IME it isn't because they aren't an environment conducive to informed debate. It's easy to get eve
by flukus 6y ago
> it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out
IME it isn't because they aren't an environment conducive to informed debate. It's easy to get everyone in the room to agree, but as soon as you get out and check specifics, think the problem through properly, research what's already in pace, etc, you realize the whole meeting was a waste or worse, you've just committed to something sub-optimal/impossible.
An async "meeting" allow you to look for information so it's based in reality not best guesses, it gives you time to read necessary background info and do more research. These ultimately make for better decisions. They also don't waste the time of people that don't care.
- cutemonster 6y ago> you've just committed to something sub-optimal/impossible What about never making decisions at meetings -- instead, let everyone think 1 week after the meeting, and make the decision asynchronously? Eg vote via email Combining meetings and async
- devdas 6y agoThen there isn't much of a point in having a meeting, is there? Instead, send out a written proposal, require well supported written commentary on the ideas, and then then meeting is to take an actual decision.
- cutemonster 6y agoWell, there're some benefits mentioned in other threads here, eg quickly sorting out misunderstandings > require well supported written commentary on the ideas That sounds good -- in that case I'd think it'd work fine both with and without meetings