> 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 ahe

> 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.