Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

chelseatroy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#11

Post by wvenable »

In our organization, remote meetings don't suck. It more or less just happened organically because we are a fairly flat organization but in a traditional industry.

Mostly no cameras. I don't even own a webcam.

A meeting is called for a reason (even if it's recurring). We have no "this is the morning meeting" kind of meetings.

There a single person in charge of the meeting. This is most often the person who wants to get resolved the thing the meeting is about. This isn't enforced it's just a natural consequence of someone booking a meeting.

Most meetings are between 2-5 people. Large recurring meetings are maybe max 12-15 people. In the large meeting, there is a rough agenda and everyone speaks to their part of the agenda in turn. Anyone can speak up if they have something relevant to add but otherwise they are muted. This is usually when I get my laundry folded.

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#12

Post by crngefest »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #4
forgetfreeman wrote: post #2

stop having them and rely largely on email for communications that should in fact be email.

Okay, this may sound nuts but I think the only issue with your proposal is that it doesn’t address the reason that this doesn’t happen. Our colleagues do not or do not want to read business communications for the purpose of comprehension for the content of their own work or communication with their colleagues. I genuinely propose a three strike policy where professional employees are to be fired after three occasions…

I ran into the same issue but I’m curious

>people do not read and comprehend emails.

Why do you think that is the case? It seems like a simple thing to do

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#13

Post by shrimp_emoji »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #4
forgetfreeman wrote: post #2

stop having them and rely largely on email for communications that should in fact be email.

Okay, this may sound nuts but I think the only issue with your proposal is that it doesn’t address the reason that this doesn’t happen. Our colleagues do not or do not want to read business communications for the purpose of comprehension for the content of their own work or communication with their colleagues. I genuinely propose a three strike policy where professional employees are to be fired after three occasions…

Too much email spam from the company, including fake phishing attempts, to take my inbox seriously. It's a noisy channel.

Email is also slow. Instant messaging is where it's at, but most people's reading comprehension and writing are not at the level where that's the only viable medium.

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#16

Post by [deleted] »

crngefest wrote: post #12
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, this may sound nuts but I think the only issue with your proposal is that it doesn’t address the reason that this doesn’t happen. Our colleagues do not or do not want to read business communications for the purpose of comprehension for the content of their own work or communication with their colleagues. I genuinely propose a three strike policy where professional employees are to be fired after three occasions…

I ran into the same issue but I’m curious >people do not read and comprehend emails. Why do you think that is the case? It seems like a simple thing to do

[deleted]

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#17

Post by goldfishgold »

stavros wrote: post #6

This article keeps talking about "the caucus problem", but never actually defines it. I couldn't follow the post at all because every problem kept ending with "but this isn't the real problem, the caucus problem is".

A caucus is defined and discussed in the previous post: “A caucus (and specifically an unmoderated caucus) is a type of meeting with no rules about who talks in what order or for how long.”

Agreed the post is confusing and could have used a summary of the preceding piece to be intelligible.

https://chelseatroy.com/2018/03/29/why-do-remote-meetings-su...

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#18

Post by jaggederest »

wvenable wrote: post #11

In our organization, remote meetings don't suck. It more or less just happened organically because we are a fairly flat organization but in a traditional industry. Mostly no cameras. I don't even own a webcam. A meeting is called for a reason (even if it's recurring). We have no "this is the morning meeting" kind of meetings. There a single person in charge of the meeting. This is most often the person who wants to g…

Very close to my own rules for meetings.

- Meetings must have a purpose. (to echo you above)

- The meeting must have a result, some sort of action or next step. Only one.

- When the meeting has created a result to address the purpose, the meeting is over.

- Someone runs the meeting. They decide when the result has been achieved. (to echo you above)

- Someone (explicitly not the meeting runner) takes notes, action items, etc, and records the purpose and result.

- The rule is, you invite people who are required to achieve the result. Other people, marked as optional, may attend if they feel they are necessary. Otherwise, optional attendance defaults to not attending.

- No recurring meetings, no "informational updates", those we call something else. A hangout. A discussion. A presentation.

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#19

Post by stavros »

goldfishgold wrote: post #17
stavros wrote: post #6

This article keeps talking about "the caucus problem", but never actually defines it. I couldn't follow the post at all because every problem kept ending with "but this isn't the real problem, the caucus problem is".

A caucus is defined and discussed in the previous post: “A caucus (and specifically an unmoderated caucus) is a type of meeting with no rules about who talks in what order or for how long.” Agreed the post is confusing and could have used a summary of the preceding piece to be intelligible. https://chelseatroy.com/2018/03/29/why-do-remote-meetings-su...

That clarifies things, thank you!

Re: How do we make remote meetings not suck? (2018)

#20

Post by MichaelRo »

crngefest wrote: post #10
stavros wrote: post #6

This article keeps talking about "the caucus problem", but never actually defines it. I couldn't follow the post at all because every problem kept ending with "but this isn't the real problem, the caucus problem is".

Same. I searched a bit online but it doesn’t seem to be a well established term

[flagged]
Post reply on HN