6 ms·

> At the end of the day, like it or not, the majority of people working for a company of beyond a small size are going to be in some level of a collaborative en

> At the end of the day, like it or not, the majority of people working for a company of beyond a small size are going to be in some level of a collaborative environment. Logistically, it's easier to accomplish that in person. You say this like it's a foregone conclusion, a fact. I disagree with it completely. It's far easier to collaborate remotely. You don't need find a meeting room, you don't need to worry about making too much noise, you don't need to worry about adding one person from another location suddenly changing the entire dynamic. It's nice to work together in person occasionally, but I'd much rather collaborate remotely... and get together for lunch now and again.

tshaddox 5y ago
> You don't need find a meeting room You have to pay for your own. > you don't need to worry about making too much noise Unless other people live in your home. > you don't need to worry about adding one person from another location suddenly changing the entire dynamic. That’s comparing all-remote to some-remote, which is a different comparison than all-remote to all-in-office.
- bpye 5y ago
  If you have a company with more than one office I think having some meetings with remote participants is an unavoidable truth. Perhaps not every meeting - but anything requiring collaboration between teams or features groups could require it.
- watwut 5y ago
  > You have to pay for your own. You have to do it anyway. The rent did not went up due you being at home during day.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Either you paid for more space or you lost space at your home during the 8 hours you were previously working at an office.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > you lost space at your home during the 8 hours I guess that's true, but I'm not sure why I would care about my home getting slightly smaller when I'm at work. It will affect some people, but I don't know if it's many.
      - RHSeeger 5y ago
        I would expect it impacts a large number of people that work primarily remotely. A lot of us have a home office because working from the kitchen or other shared space just isn't effective. The cost of an extra room (even if a bonus room, not a full bedroom) can increase the cost of a house by a dramatic amount; and then you also have to consider utilities and the like. Every time I've done the math, working from home costs more (for the worker) than going into the office; usually my many thousands of dollars a year.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Needing a dedicated home office room for various reasons is a big issue but it is not the issue I was responding to. In "Either you paid for more space or you lost space at your home during the 8 hours", a dedicated office is the "paid for more space" side, and I was talking about the "lost space" alternative.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Not just when you’re at work, unless you tear down your desk and store it out of sight every single day!
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Only if you got an extra work-only desk. Even then, an extra desk by itself isn't very big.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        A desk is big if you live somewhere where property and rent prices are high. Like California, for instance.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>You don't need find a meeting room, maybe it's just because I've never been the meeting room finding person but in most places I've worked it hasn't been a big problem. >you don't need to worry about making too much noise, I've never had the problem that a meeting was being too noisy for the people outside a meeting, but I have had the problem that kids in the house were being too noisy for the online meeting and everyone has to laugh and talk about how wonderful having the kids is. >you don't need to worry about adding one person from another location suddenly changing the entire dynamic. Why wouldn't this affect remote meetings? Obviously there are any number of things that can affect remote meeting quality. I would think for meeting quality an in person one is likely to work better as a meeting, although people might prefer the remote one for all sorts of other reasons.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > in most places I've worked it hasn't been a big problem In every place I've worked, there's been a limited number of meeting rooms and you needed to plan ahead to get one. And if your meeting ran over, it wasn't uncommon to have a group of people standing outside waiting for you to vacate. > I've never had the problem that a meeting was being too noisy for the people outside a meeting Fair. I was really thinking about the impromptu meetings of 3-4 people around a desk (because getting a meeting room takes too much time). Those almost infallibly annoy other people in the area, even if they don't say anything. > Why wouldn't this affect remote meetings? Suddenly adding a remote person to a meeting that was planned to be in person is difficult at best. It's common for the people on location to just not "play well" with the remote person. When meetings are "remote first", adding one more remote person doesn't wind up with that person being an afterthought. This is a fairly well known issue, honestly. > I would think for meeting quality an in person one is likely to work better as a meeting Under optimal circumstances, the in person meeting does tend to be best. However, there are so many different variations from optimal, it's my experience that remote-first meetings wind up being better in nearly every _actual_ case.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    >And if your meeting ran over, it wasn't uncommon to have a group of people standing outside waiting for you to vacate. having a meeting run over is a problem, having someone waiting to get into that room is a solution to the problem.
dragonsky67 5y ago
Our experience following the covid lockdowns and everybody working from home is that even if a majority of us are in the office, we still have meetings over Teams. It allows far better control, easier background chat, sharing ideas that can be raised in the verbal meeting and people to get on with real work if the topic under conversation is not important to them, but keeping them in the loop. Win win.

tshaddox 5y ago

> You don't need find a meeting room You have to pay for your own. > you don't need to worry about making too much noise Unless other people live in your home. > you don't need to worry about adding one person from another location suddenly changing the entire dynamic. That’s comparing all-remote to some-remote, which is a different comparison than all-remote to all-in-office.

bpye 5y ago
If you have a company with more than one office I think having some meetings with remote participants is an unavoidable truth. Perhaps not every meeting - but anything requiring collaboration between teams or features groups could require it.
watwut 5y ago
> You have to pay for your own. You have to do it anyway. The rent did not went up due you being at home during day.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Either you paid for more space or you lost space at your home during the 8 hours you were previously working at an office.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > you lost space at your home during the 8 hours I guess that's true, but I'm not sure why I would care about my home getting slightly smaller when I'm at work. It will affect some people, but I don't know if it's many.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      I would expect it impacts a large number of people that work primarily remotely. A lot of us have a home office because working from the kitchen or other shared space just isn't effective. The cost of an extra room (even if a bonus room, not a full bedroom) can increase the cost of a house by a dramatic amount; and then you also have to consider utilities and the like. Every time I've done the math, working from home costs more (for the worker) than going into the office; usually my many thousands of dollars a year.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Needing a dedicated home office room for various reasons is a big issue but it is not the issue I was responding to. In "Either you paid for more space or you lost space at your home during the 8 hours", a dedicated office is the "paid for more space" side, and I was talking about the "lost space" alternative.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Not just when you’re at work, unless you tear down your desk and store it out of sight every single day!
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Only if you got an extra work-only desk. Even then, an extra desk by itself isn't very big.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        A desk is big if you live somewhere where property and rent prices are high. Like California, for instance.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>You don't need find a meeting room, maybe it's just because I've never been the meeting room finding person but in most places I've worked it hasn't been a big problem. >you don't need to worry about making too much noise, I've never had the problem that a meeting was being too noisy for the people outside a meeting, but I have had the problem that kids in the house were being too noisy for the online meeting and everyone has to laugh and talk about how wonderful having the kids is. >you don't need to worry about adding one person from another location suddenly changing the entire dynamic. Why wouldn't this affect remote meetings? Obviously there are any number of things that can affect remote meeting quality. I would think for meeting quality an in person one is likely to work better as a meeting, although people might prefer the remote one for all sorts of other reasons.

RHSeeger 5y ago
> in most places I've worked it hasn't been a big problem In every place I've worked, there's been a limited number of meeting rooms and you needed to plan ahead to get one. And if your meeting ran over, it wasn't uncommon to have a group of people standing outside waiting for you to vacate. > I've never had the problem that a meeting was being too noisy for the people outside a meeting Fair. I was really thinking about the impromptu meetings of 3-4 people around a desk (because getting a meeting room takes too much time). Those almost infallibly annoy other people in the area, even if they don't say anything. > Why wouldn't this affect remote meetings? Suddenly adding a remote person to a meeting that was planned to be in person is difficult at best. It's common for the people on location to just not "play well" with the remote person. When meetings are "remote first", adding one more remote person doesn't wind up with that person being an afterthought. This is a fairly well known issue, honestly. > I would think for meeting quality an in person one is likely to work better as a meeting Under optimal circumstances, the in person meeting does tend to be best. However, there are so many different variations from optimal, it's my experience that remote-first meetings wind up being better in nearly every _actual_ case.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >And if your meeting ran over, it wasn't uncommon to have a group of people standing outside waiting for you to vacate. having a meeting run over is a problem, having someone waiting to get into that room is a solution to the problem.

dragonsky67 5y ago

Our experience following the covid lockdowns and everybody working from home is that even if a majority of us are in the office, we still have meetings over Teams. It allows far better control, easier background chat, sharing ideas that can be raised in the verbal meeting and people to get on with real work if the topic under conversation is not important to them, but keeping them in the loop. Win win.