14 ms·

> Share with coworkers wouldn't this part be easier to do in a meeting than in a huge email thread?

by azov 15y ago

reemrevnivek 15y ago
The article talks about using Campfire (http://campfirenow.com/ http://campfirenow.com/), which is a lot nicer than a huge email thread. From the campfire page: Team collaboration with real time chat. Campfire is like instant messaging, but designed exclusively for groups. Share text, files, and code in real time. I don't think anyone is advocating huge email threads here!
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  This is a point I've been making for a long time: "What's a long email? 1000 words? 5000 words? 10,000? Let's call it 10,000, just to be over the top. I can scan read at 800 wpm, and finely read at 250 - 500. So absolute worst case scenario I'll have to spend 40 mins reading an extraordinarily long email. That is still better than an hour long meeting where I'll listen at 40 to 80 wpm and have completely no recollection of it two weeks from then. So why the fuck do we consider ten thousand word emails completely insane but we even entertain the idea of an hour long meeting?" Obviously something like campfire or flow or whatever is better than emails, but I'll take long emails over meetings any day of the week.
  - argv_empty 15y ago
    Ideally, the hour-long meeting is a collection of many small communications from several different people. If meetings consist of getting talked at by one person for an hour, I think most would agree that something is wrong.
  - azov 15y ago
    You have a point. But you are assuming that meetings are about exchanging textual information. Usually there's more than that. It's often important to get an idea about how stakeholders feel about different ideas. You can see facial expressions of everyone in a room and hear the way people speak at the same time as you're processing what's being said. All this information will not be in your chat/email thread at all. Also, not everyone is a great writer, many people will communicate much less details in writing than in person. Part of the reason why management likes meetings more than developers is because non-verbal data tends to be more important for their jobs. Plus, what about visuals? Drawing on a whiteboard is easier than drawing in any software package I know of (even if you've got stuff like Wacom tablets). It's also easier and much faster to point to something than to explain it verbally. Overall, I think the benefits of asynchronous workflow far outweigh the drawbacks (btw, anyone got a list of companies that use it? :), but it's important to understand the drawbacks as well.
    - 3pt14159 15y ago
      You definitely have a point with the visuals. As for how people feel about certain things, I've always preferred informal lunches over meetings.

> Share with coworkers wouldn't this part be easier to do in a meeting than in a huge email thread?

by azov 15y ago

> Share with coworkers wouldn't this part be easier to do in a meeting than in a huge email thread?

The article talks about using Campfire (http://campfirenow.com/ http://campfirenow.com/), which is a lot nicer than a huge email thread. From the campfire page: Team collaboration with real time chat. Campfire is like instant messaging, but designed exclusively for groups. Share text, files, and code in real time. I don't think anyone is advocating huge email threads here!

3pt14159 15y ago
This is a point I've been making for a long time: "What's a long email? 1000 words? 5000 words? 10,000? Let's call it 10,000, just to be over the top. I can scan read at 800 wpm, and finely read at 250 - 500. So absolute worst case scenario I'll have to spend 40 mins reading an extraordinarily long email. That is still better than an hour long meeting where I'll listen at 40 to 80 wpm and have completely no recollection of it two weeks from then. So why the fuck do we consider ten thousand word emails completely insane but we even entertain the idea of an hour long meeting?" Obviously something like campfire or flow or whatever is better than emails, but I'll take long emails over meetings any day of the week.
- argv_empty 15y ago
  Ideally, the hour-long meeting is a collection of many small communications from several different people. If meetings consist of getting talked at by one person for an hour, I think most would agree that something is wrong.
- azov 15y ago
  You have a point. But you are assuming that meetings are about exchanging textual information. Usually there's more than that. It's often important to get an idea about how stakeholders feel about different ideas. You can see facial expressions of everyone in a room and hear the way people speak at the same time as you're processing what's being said. All this information will not be in your chat/email thread at all. Also, not everyone is a great writer, many people will communicate much less details in writing than in person. Part of the reason why management likes meetings more than developers is because non-verbal data tends to be more important for their jobs. Plus, what about visuals? Drawing on a whiteboard is easier than drawing in any software package I know of (even if you've got stuff like Wacom tablets). It's also easier and much faster to point to something than to explain it verbally. Overall, I think the benefits of asynchronous workflow far outweigh the drawbacks (btw, anyone got a list of companies that use it? :), but it's important to understand the drawbacks as well.
  - 3pt14159 15y ago
    You definitely have a point with the visuals. As for how people feel about certain things, I've always preferred informal lunches over meetings.