4 ms·
This also provides some arguments against synchronous (video, audio) meetings. Although it's possible for a group to have a sensible, thoughtful conversation w
by jka 5y ago
This also provides some arguments against synchronous (video, audio) meetings.
Although it's possible for a group to have a sensible, thoughtful conversation within a synchronous environment, a lot of that requires a calm and slow temperament on the part of (all of!) the participants.
That isn't, in my experience, the reality in most software companies -- people talk quickly and interject. That has the effect of pushing out more thoughtful responses.
- MrYellowP 5y ago> people talk quickly and interject. Yes. Mindless automatons.
- jka 5y agoNot really what I'm suggesting; many of the responses (even rapid ones) could be valuable and accurate. But regardless, it can make it difficult for all opinions to feel heard (and that can lead to other problems).
- discordance 5y agoDepends who this happens with and the context. I cherish those incredible conversations with some where there was lots of constructive interjection… essentially jamming with ideas. This hasn’t been the case with those who have a point to prove or are just argumentative.
- leobg 5y agoFor exactly that reason I’ve never understood the focus on the in-person hearing in law. Thought I think the preference is the result of preferring speed over quality. As a judge, reading and comprehending twenty pages of well researched legal briefs takes much more time than scheduling a 15 minute hearing (which is also mich less mentally taxing on you, because it’s going to be the parties of the case who are doing most of the talking).
- Someone 5y agoI would think/hope/expect the judge has spent time reading and comprehending the case before that 15 minute meeting. At least in my very limited experience, they manage to pose fairly astute questions in such meetings.