5 ms·
Presumably they can still schedule the synchronous conversations one at a time. They just can't set them to "recurring." I have no idea how they make policies
by naravara 4y ago
Presumably they can still schedule the synchronous conversations one at a time. They just can't set them to "recurring."
I have no idea how they make policies like these work with business partnerships though. I could live with a rule like this internally, but it's hard to get time on a client or partner's calendar and, when you do, recurring meetings let you reserve it.
- kube-system 4y agoThat's part of how recurring meetings get out of hand. They'll get scheduled as an 'easy' way to maintain a cadence when people have a busy schedule, regardless of any particular instance's necessity. If someone works with a dozen different groups, this sometimes results in evenly spaced 5 minute status updates interrupting someone's workday every half hour.
- naravara 4y agoThe alternative is spending all day coordinating with 10 different people's secretaries to schedule time on their calendars with them. It's much easier to cancel instances of a recurring meeting than to have to schedule each one each time. Of course, if it's just a 5 minute status update you should just send a memo.
- kube-system 4y agoThat's right. But I find that meeting organizers are reluctant to cancel instances of a meeting even when they don't have much to share, because they are unsure in advance if others on the meeting may have something to bring up.
- naravara 4y agoI always send a "I am good to cancel today's meeting unless someone has something they would like to discuss." Takes no more effort than just cancelling.
- kube-system 4y agoI do that for internal meetings where the members are on the same team. But on meetings across teams or organizations, I've found things often get more socially complicated. Especially if the incentives for engagement are not aligned.