2 ms·
there is a small but growing cohort of people who both a.) work in all or predominantly remote orgs and b.) understand the carbon cost of flying. if your team
by cagenut 4y ago
there is a small but growing cohort of people who both a.) work in all or predominantly remote orgs and b.) understand the carbon cost of flying.
if your team meets those critera then this is the only way to make these decisions.
even if your team doesn't entirely agree on b, those of us who do can use this to inform our votes on where to meet.
- wolrah 4y agoMy emphasis for that sort of scenario would be on the *need* to meet in person aspect. I've been working remote exclusive for over a decade at this point and even though we're all in the same part of a single US state the last time more than two of us occupied the same building at the same time was years ago. The more people or travel groups you add to the equation the less likely it is in my mind that you actually needed to physically meet unless you're meeting to do something in the real world which usually can't be done absolutely anywhere. If you're not meeting somewhere specific to do a thing in that place why couldn't the meeting have been done virtually? Someone else suggested conferences, and I guess that could make sense in the case of small conferences where any random major airport hotel can handle their needs and a substantial portion of the attendees can be expected to vote, but it doesn't scale.