4 ms·
Agree with 10/12. > Schedule any meetings that really require 1 hour over lunch. For the love of God no. This almost always ends up turning into an excuse for
by j_baker 12y ago
Agree with 10/12.
> Schedule any meetings that really require 1 hour over lunch.
For the love of God no. This almost always ends up turning into an excuse for managers to make your lunchtime into work time.
> If our meeting is scheduled for 10:00 and you're not there by 10:01, I lock the door.
I get that it's important to be punctual, but isn't this a bit extreme?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago> I get that it's important to be punctual, but isn't this a bit extreme? If your meeting is scheduled for 30 minutes, then 1 minute of delay is already 3.3% of the meeting wasted. 5 minutes of typical courtesy buffer is almost 17%! It may be important if your schedule is full. Also it sends a clear message: value time of everyone, and if you can't be bothered to be exactly on time, then your meeting is probably not that important and maybe shouldn't be held at all.
- dinkumthinkum 12y agoI don't know ... Maybe if we are going to war or something but if your life is that serious to get into 1 minute == 3.3%, that just feels weird like maybe those people the drop out and disconnect from society have a point. :)
- mgkimsal 12y agoagreed. was just thinking about the shuffling in/out time of a few people - getting seated, checking if a projector works, etc. that's easily 1-2 minutes at the start or end - 6% of the time gone!! edit: the time to get up and lock the door, then unlock it, and to likely admonish the person who was late - that's also wasted time.
- vacri 12y agoIf time is that precious, then don't waste travelling to the meeting room and do a video call instead.