Live data from Hacker News

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

chelseatroy.com

41–50 of 113 posts

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

#41

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 feel like unrelated issues are being conflated here? The issue of one on one interpersonal communication should be a solved problem given email, text, phone, video call (one on one video calls don't suffer the same flavor of hideousness inflicted when the headcount starts to grow).

By comparison large headcount meetings are gross sadistic and pointless in person regardless of communications format selected. Either they're intended to let a small number of individuals convey information to a larger group (send a goddamn email already, if you're really fancy video your canned remarks and send a link to the video in the email), or they're intended to elicit some kind of exchange among a large group, at which point you end up with an hour and a half of nothing of substance being accomplished while some/most/all of the meeting participants are sitting there fighting their soul's urge to simply vacate their body on the spot. Then there's the ever-popular multi-departmental standup meeting, in which a bunch of people convey pointless detail at length about shit that is wildly irrelevant to the jobs of most of the other attendees to no obvious purpose.

Full Disclosure: I intentionally ignore my email under the assumption that if it's really important someone will pick up a phone and call.

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

#42
This article may be 6 years old, but it jives with my experiences having worked remotely for a variety of companies and in a mix of remote/onsite organizations for 11 years. In fact, the moderation suggestion is exactly how I've solved the caucus problem without actually being able to name the problem or the solution. This article is going to be my go to for referencing how meetings ought to be run and why.

The only other article that really feels like it nails a nagging problem that I've never been able to articulate but stumbled across often is "Why developers don't water the plants" https://yorkesoftware.com/2017/05/03/why-dont-developers-wat...

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

#43

The main issue that this gets at is that meeting time is a valuable company resource and a contentious resource for employees and should be managed as such. People shouldn’t feel free to chime in with half-baked ideas in meetings or call meetings willy-nilly any more than they would play horseshoes with equipment from the supply closet, use the company credit card for grocery shopping, or call in sick to play golf. W…

> call in sick to play golf

If someone really doesn't want to work, I think from the employer's perspective it doesn't make a difference. We could argue physical and mental inconveniences could be seen the same. I guess there will be places were there's a legal split between the two kinds, but I kinda wish there wasn't.

(I'm assuming there's a finite number of days either way)

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

#45
Fully agree with the article's focus on proper meeting discipline.

This can be coupled with Edward Tufte's suggestions on how to present at a meeting. To summarize, he says that there is no point sending a presentation in advance .. most will not read it anyway. Instead of a presentation, write about 5-6 six pages of prose and hand them out at the beginning of the meeting. Every one will scan the document in their own ways and write up questions. After 20 minutes or so, start discussing the document. This way, the presenter doesn't have to drone on about things that everyone knows, and one can focus on real questions.

https://www.edwardtufte.com/files/Consume_Produce_14_15.pdf

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

#46

Fully agree with the article's focus on proper meeting discipline. This can be coupled with Edward Tufte's suggestions on how to present at a meeting. To summarize, he says that there is no point sending a presentation in advance .. most will not read it anyway. Instead of a presentation, write about 5-6 six pages of prose and hand them out at the beginning of the meeting. Every one will scan the document in their ow…

Haha, you say that, but from years of personal experience with this meeting style, what really happens is you end up getting a lot of questions which are clearly answered further up/down in the document or questions which are completely pointless or nonsensical to ask but people like to just be heard and make themselves look good for having something to say.

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

#47

Latency is the killer for me. Both with video calls and even just with cell phone calls. Old school phone calls could be spontaneous and collaborative almost as good as meeting in person, because latency was as close to zero as possible and you could properly hear both people talking at the same time. But the delays and lack of good audio mixing in cell and video-call tech mean it’s impossible to use in the same way.…

VoIP phones have excellent latency nowadays, much better than a call. It's possible to have a normal conversation on them.

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

#48
post #47

Latency is the killer for me. Both with video calls and even just with cell phone calls. Old school phone calls could be spontaneous and collaborative almost as good as meeting in person, because latency was as close to zero as possible and you could properly hear both people talking at the same time. But the delays and lack of good audio mixing in cell and video-call tech mean it’s impossible to use in the same way.…

VoIP phones have excellent latency nowadays, much better than a call. It's possible to have a normal conversation on them.

It's not much the phone but the network. How many insist using craptops with crappy softphone webapps connected via crappy wifi because they think a damn desktop with a normal cat6 to the router is "an old thing"? How many even try to attend certain meetings on the go on crappy mobile macrobugs AKA smartphones on mobile networks?

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

#49
I suspect that most people have issue on mere work tools, they do know by names tools from another era, while they never really used them, but they do not know the modern tools, so they create in their own minds strange hybrids between the old tools they never used and the new one.

In the past was common having meetings in a physical room, because the office was a needed tool due to paper-based workflows, and since attending demand certain time not only to meet but also to prepare the meeting, going to the right place and so on they was organized in certain formats. Things are, or should and must be different, but most fails to understand how to use new tools properly.

In the modern connected world attending a meeting is damn cheap, but we also have other tools to collaborate and depending on the task such other tools are better. Having searchable text trails, developing certain topics slowly a message at a time, having few "spontaneous" meetings between only few, than openly discussing something often is much better. But you should know modern tools and all must use them seriously.

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

#50

purely technical, but lower latency (even at the cost of crackles), make everyone have a good mic, emulated spacial audio. I think these things would help so so much. I wonder if there is any research on the impact of these.

Emphatically agreed.

I’m sure there are some research results on how high-quality audio improves meetings – or conversely, how degraded audio degrades communications.

Those research results might not be trivially easy to find however. And I’m sure there’s been less of this kind of research than we’d like.

However! I’m fairly sure that a pretty convincing picture can be assembled through looking at things from different fields of study.

As far as I know, the brain processes any incoming signals. There’s all sorts of filtering going on to extract the meaningful signal. I’m fairly certain that degraded input costs much more brain processing than clear input, probably measurable by MRI or fatigue tests or calorie consumption, if not directly by performance testing on accuracy or response time.

I’m also curious if the field that studies turn-taking in human speech communications doesn’t have something to say about unnatural latency between speakers. Cognitive efficiency and communications efficiency are surely measurable there. Psychoacoustic neuropsychology? idk.

And then I wonder if the entertainment market hasn’t done some research on high-quality reproduction in, say, cinemas? Almost certainly the investment into elaborate audio/video reproduction equipment is data-driven, backed by measurement of audience immersion.

Probably there’s something on high-precision work like remote surgery too.

It’s all valid, it’s all applicable.

The other side of the argument is that humans tend to be argumentative, judgemental, dismissive, and unaware of the extensive refinement and reshaping of sensory inputs that goes on in their heads. So they’ll tend to dismiss inquiries into this, in my experience. It has to be tediously crafted as a suitably high-status pursuit but not too high.

Post reply on HN