3 ms·
This is also a good way to do nothing for two weeks because teams can no longer efficiently coordinate. It's an incredibly childish approach to reducing unneces
by tensor 4y ago
This is also a good way to do nothing for two weeks because teams can no longer efficiently coordinate. It's an incredibly childish approach to reducing unnecessary meetings, and I'm highly skeptical that it has any benefits at all other than making Toby feel special.
- rchaud 4y agoThis kind of heavy-handed approach feels like the kind of thing I'd do if I read HN religiously and took everything as gospel. There are few things more reviled in these realms than meetings and MBAs.
- alkonaut 4y agoIf a team requires a synchronous meeting to coordinate that feels like an opportunity to replace the meeting with something else that is more efficient. I don’t know these circumstances but I completely agree with the premise of not allowing indefinitely recurring meetings. Perhaps it’s better to simply limit them to say 10 occurrences before they must be reconsidered, participants reevaluated and so on.
- djur 4y agoIt is completely normal, acceptable, even desirable for a team of people working on a project to meet regularly to coordinate their efforts. That is how groups of people have worked together since time immemorial. It is unreasonable and dogmatic to expect that every team will naturally reach peak efficiency by working fully asynchronously.
- closeparen 4y agoIf people don't have 2 weeks of stuff they can do without a video call, those people are at best being kept on incredibly short leashes. At a certain density of meetings you aren't "coordinating your efforts," there are no efforts, all you're doing is having meetings. There has to be a space between where the efforts being coordinated actually take place.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]