I have 3 problems with this article. 1. No true scotsman fallacy: The author redefines the term “meeting” to “productive meeting”. Any criticism against nonpro

I have 3 problems with this article. 1. No true scotsman fallacy: The author redefines the term “meeting” to “productive meeting”. Any criticism against nonproductive meetings becomes invalid because in the article a meeting is by definition productive. 2. Straw manning: the author then deflects criticism against meetings as invalid by making it sound as if the opposing camp considers all meetings unproductive, even productive ones. This is not the opposing side’s argument. I have yet to meet a dev that considers meetings with a clear agenda and only relevant parties present unproductive. 3. The claim that meetings on their own are valuable is easily disproven, but it’s the core of the entire article. Meetings are only valuable to get something done: find the issue to solve, find a solution together, organize a common strategy to solve a problem, ask for necessary resources to solve a problem, etc. If it’s clear what to do or how then a meeting only costs time and at best provides no benefit while adding the risk that the solution is made worse by people who have no expertise but hold power.