4 ms·

I don’t think in-person is better if you don’t know what you need to build. I’ve experienced teams where people were totally without direction despite being in-

I don’t think in-person is better if you don’t know what you need to build. I’ve experienced teams where people were totally without direction despite being in-person. I think in-person just makes it easier to look like you are busy when you have no direction, and remote lays the fact bare.

fendy3002 3y ago
Agree that though it's better in person during brainstorm / discussion, it isn't decisive. When people are having zero ground during the meeting, it won't provide any meaningful result no matter what you do. And if it resulting in something, usually it'll be bad. What I found to be the best approach is one or two people already established a concept at what to make or at least the image of it, and the discussion can move to the details and implementation plan. And that doesn't need to be in person
- extr 3y ago
  > What I found to be the best approach is one or two people already established a concept at what to make or at least the image of it, and the discussion can move to the details and implementation plan. This is exactly what I was getting at by referencing a benevolent dictatorship. When remote, it's just easier if one person is providing direction by fiat rather than trying to collect everyone's input and communally make a decision.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Agree that though it's better in person during brainstorm / discussion Yes, that's why before WHF, people really loved meetings and brainstorm sessions at work /s In person during brainstorm discussion usually means endless time-wasting and bikeshedding.