5 ms·

> The "Meetings" section might be controversial I can't really say I found it all that controversial. If I wanted to be controversial I'd say that most recurri

> The "Meetings" section might be controversial I can't really say I found it all that controversial. If I wanted to be controversial I'd say that most recurring meetings and any meeting with more than 5 people are a waste of time. I quite often ask someone who messages me out of the blue with a problem to book time in my calendar (which is usually at least 50% free). Because having a specific time to look at something is usually much better than me either dropping what I'm doing to think about something else or forgetting about their message and getting chased by them 3 days later.

The_Colonel 3y ago
> Because having a specific time to look at something is usually much better than me either dropping what I'm doing to think about something else There's no hard and fast rule, but if you can help them out in 10 minutes, then it's much healthier for the culture/organization to unblock them immediately (within let's say 30 minutes) than ask them to organize a meeting.
Silhouette 3y ago
If I wanted to be controversial I'd say that most recurring meetings and any meeting with more than 5 people are a waste of time. You're probably right but it's sad that this is regarded as controversial rather than self-evident. Maybe any meeting with more than 5 people being a waste of time is a stretch and most again would have been a more defensible claim? But the spirit is right. Good meetings happen when there is a good reason to have a meeting. Recurring meetings are often symptoms of other management problems that have better solutions available.