4 ms·

I don't get it. Why people are trying to recreate the horrors of the office? Is it because of luck of human connection? In my opinion everyone who's advocating

by 2easy 4y ago

I don't get it. Why people are trying to recreate the horrors of the office? Is it because of luck of human connection? In my opinion everyone who's advocating "meetings" - formal or not - is just unable to express thoughts in writing. You have to learn to communicate asynchronously and become a better writer rather than trying to recreate the dysfunctional environment that you are familiar with.

throwawaysleep 4y ago
Introverts view them as horrors. Extroverts love this stuff. I view meetings as next to worthless as nothing is retained as nobody writes anything down (and I am not willing to pay attention enough to do it as a rank and file dev who won't be blamed for it).
- 2easy 4y ago
  I agree. Meetings are exclusive, usually poorly documented time wasters.
jen729w 4y ago
I disagree with the modern blanket assumption that meetings are bad. Meetings do not have to be bad. Now most meetings are bad, I’ll give you that. But a well-run meeting, with purpose, which doesn’t faff on and respects the participants’ time, is still a very effective way to get something done. It is a fallacy that every meeting can be replaced with email. I hate email more than I hate even a mediocre meeting.
- 2easy 4y ago
  Yeah, especially random-pop-ins-by-anyone-with-no-agenda as a culture
qq66 4y ago
There is only a small subset of organizations with a small subset of members tackling a small subset of problems that can achieve their goals fully asynchronously. For everything else, synchronous meetings will continue to be essential (and even those projects like Linux which seem to be fully asynchronous usually have one contributor who dominates the project and thus the communication overhead/latency problem isn't as taxing)
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >There is only a small subset of organizations with a small subset of members tackling a small subset of problems that can achieve their goals fully asynchronously. Both this assumption and the gp's assumption are just that: assumptions. It's fascinating how a few years of half-hearted attempts with status quo management all too eager to revert to at-location is used as a way to support this. It's still way too early to make such a bold statement.
- 2easy 4y ago
  That's because people suck at communication - especially programmers. I lead remote teams and it is totally possible. The only essential "meetings" we have are retrospectives in which we discuss how to work/communicate with each other better. Good communication requires a lot of energy, bad communication requires meetings. We only have meetings unless absolutely necessary, not some laughable "pop ins"
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    >That's because people suck at communication - especially programmers It's everyone. Not 'especially' programmers. Everyone. Flip the tables and expect the other side to adapt to the context instead, and we'd be calling management terrible at communication. Software development seems fairly unique in expecting developers to bridge the gap instead of management, when such expectations are not put on several other fields. Regardless of the mental strain put on those professions. Heck, it's stunning we have so many customer-facing type jobs in software development only to expect developers to adapt. The heck you getting paid for if you're not actually a mediator between two different contexts like, you know, almost every other field?
Aaargh20318 4y ago
> Why people are trying to recreate the horrors of the office? Is it because of luck of human connection? Because a lot of people have a pathological need for social interaction. In my opinion this is extremely unhealthy, a person should not be dependent on other humans to be comfortable and happy, but society sees it as normal and even desirable.
- ClassyJacket 4y ago
  I strongly disagree, and I would suggest if you feel that way you have an abnormality such as autism. Human interaction is fundamental to being a human, and people should be expected to desire it regularly. I do, however, agree people shouldn't be dependent on their office for that. I have no desire to make friends with coworkers, unless it just happens to occur organically because we like each other.
  - Aaargh20318 4y ago
    > Human interaction is fundamental to being a human, and people should be expected to desire it regularly. It's a weakness that needs to be fixed, not something that should be encouraged.
Test0129 4y ago
I am a very big introvert. I've recently realized (and adopted) the convenience of short 5-10 min zoom calls to sort out something rather than typing. Often times there is context that is either hard to explain or something that inflection will convey better than well written prose. I personally don't like all the "fun" calls extroverts seem to want to have all the time. But for short huddles I've often gotten unblocked 10x quicker by simply seeing if someone had 5 minutes to talk through something 1-on-1. Then I have their undivided attention and I don't have to wait for them to get around to me on Slack or email which understandably take a back seat.

by 2easy 4y ago

throwawaysleep 4y ago

Introverts view them as horrors. Extroverts love this stuff. I view meetings as next to worthless as nothing is retained as nobody writes anything down (and I am not willing to pay attention enough to do it as a rank and file dev who won't be blamed for it).

2easy 4y ago
I agree. Meetings are exclusive, usually poorly documented time wasters.

jen729w 4y ago

I disagree with the modern blanket assumption that meetings are bad. Meetings do not have to be bad. Now most meetings are bad, I’ll give you that. But a well-run meeting, with purpose, which doesn’t faff on and respects the participants’ time, is still a very effective way to get something done. It is a fallacy that every meeting can be replaced with email. I hate email more than I hate even a mediocre meeting.

2easy 4y ago
Yeah, especially random-pop-ins-by-anyone-with-no-agenda as a culture

qq66 4y ago

There is only a small subset of organizations with a small subset of members tackling a small subset of problems that can achieve their goals fully asynchronously. For everything else, synchronous meetings will continue to be essential (and even those projects like Linux which seem to be fully asynchronous usually have one contributor who dominates the project and thus the communication overhead/latency problem isn't as taxing)

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>There is only a small subset of organizations with a small subset of members tackling a small subset of problems that can achieve their goals fully asynchronously. Both this assumption and the gp's assumption are just that: assumptions. It's fascinating how a few years of half-hearted attempts with status quo management all too eager to revert to at-location is used as a way to support this. It's still way too early to make such a bold statement.
2easy 4y ago
That's because people suck at communication - especially programmers. I lead remote teams and it is totally possible. The only essential "meetings" we have are retrospectives in which we discuss how to work/communicate with each other better. Good communication requires a lot of energy, bad communication requires meetings. We only have meetings unless absolutely necessary, not some laughable "pop ins"
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >That's because people suck at communication - especially programmers It's everyone. Not 'especially' programmers. Everyone. Flip the tables and expect the other side to adapt to the context instead, and we'd be calling management terrible at communication. Software development seems fairly unique in expecting developers to bridge the gap instead of management, when such expectations are not put on several other fields. Regardless of the mental strain put on those professions. Heck, it's stunning we have so many customer-facing type jobs in software development only to expect developers to adapt. The heck you getting paid for if you're not actually a mediator between two different contexts like, you know, almost every other field?

Aaargh20318 4y ago

> Why people are trying to recreate the horrors of the office? Is it because of luck of human connection? Because a lot of people have a pathological need for social interaction. In my opinion this is extremely unhealthy, a person should not be dependent on other humans to be comfortable and happy, but society sees it as normal and even desirable.

ClassyJacket 4y ago
I strongly disagree, and I would suggest if you feel that way you have an abnormality such as autism. Human interaction is fundamental to being a human, and people should be expected to desire it regularly. I do, however, agree people shouldn't be dependent on their office for that. I have no desire to make friends with coworkers, unless it just happens to occur organically because we like each other.
- Aaargh20318 4y ago
  > Human interaction is fundamental to being a human, and people should be expected to desire it regularly. It's a weakness that needs to be fixed, not something that should be encouraged.

Test0129 4y ago

I am a very big introvert. I've recently realized (and adopted) the convenience of short 5-10 min zoom calls to sort out something rather than typing. Often times there is context that is either hard to explain or something that inflection will convey better than well written prose. I personally don't like all the "fun" calls extroverts seem to want to have all the time. But for short huddles I've often gotten unblocked 10x quicker by simply seeing if someone had 5 minutes to talk through something 1-on-1. Then I have their undivided attention and I don't have to wait for them to get around to me on Slack or email which understandably take a back seat.