> resulting in the loss of an async cycle. This is great way to think about this, thanks. Depending on the team and communication channel, the cycle time can

> resulting in the loss of an async cycle. This is great way to think about this, thanks. Depending on the team and communication channel, the cycle time can be hours or even a day (not including weekends), and I think avoiding extra cycles has a significant impact on the way people communicate, whether they realize it or not. > For problems which are not well defined, and where a lot of decisions need to be taken, especially when they verge toward the arbitrary, it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out. A remote meeting can work too. If I find myself in strong disagreement with someone's statements (and maybe wanting to write an angry rebuttal), I find it's usually better to switch to a synchronous discussion. Most of the time it comes down to misinterpretation that takes 2 or 3 cycles to clear up, and in a sync conversation that can happen in a matter of minutes and with significantly shorter responses than the async equivalent requires. When you're responding to something in async communication, most people don't want to waste a cycle by just asking "What do you mean by 'x'?" -- and so instead will respond to their interpretation of 'x', often wasting many keystrokes on a misunderstanding. In a sync conversation starting by asking "What do you mean by 'x'?" is easy and low-effort, and in my experience results a much more constructive and positive discussion, regardless of which side the misunderstanding was on.