Welcome to the Lounge

jschell5-Jul-23 5:35

5-Jul-23 5:35

Nelek wrote:
because I hear people in the room twice (real sound and headsets).

???
You know you know that everyone can mute right? And still share the screen?

Nelek5-Jul-23 12:15

5-Jul-23 12:15

Mute usually is for the whole meeting, and sometimes there are people outside the office. Or do you mean a local mute?

Additionally, I hear them twice, but I here them better in the headset (ambient noise / other people, if we are all there we are 14 in the same office)

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

jschell6-Jul-23 5:14

6-Jul-23 5:14

I am guessing that you mean that some people are in a conference room and other people are remote. Then the problem shows up.

No I do not see the point of being in a conference room in that case. There are interactions/processes that one might do in a in person meeting which do not work if there are remote attendees. And people in a room tend to engage in those because they are in the room. So the organizer should not attempt to do it in a conference room.

For that I am referring to a working meeting rather than for example a company meeting. For the latter the format of the meeting is fixed (or should be) and there should be presenters. A working meeting should represent a relatively free flow of ideas.

Nelek6-Jul-23 11:55

6-Jul-23 11:55

We are not in a conference room, we are in our desks at office. And two or three people in the meeting are in the same room than me (at their desks, and me at mine)

M.D.V.

jschell7-Jul-23 11:46

7-Jul-23 11:46

Nelek wrote:
are in the same room than me (at their desks, and me at mine)

Ah...didn't think of that.

Are they cubes or just desks?

With low cubes I have had some meetings like that but often with actual attendees not normally next to each other. Those were just status meetings. I think for long design meetings I would then request a conference room in that case.

Nelek7-Jul-23 13:16

7-Jul-23 13:16

jschell wrote:
Are they cubes or just desks?

Desks with a mini wall between the other desk in front, but not to the sides.

M.D.V.

jschell10-Jul-23 3:37

10-Jul-23 3:37

Err...that isn't a desk.

It is a table.

Sort of like having a holiday dinner. Food on table is between you and the person across from you but besides you is the obnoxious uncle that keeps elbowing you.

Nelek15-Jul-23 12:34

15-Jul-23 12:34

luckily behind me is wall

M.D.V.

Cpichols5-Jul-23 1:53

Cpichols

5-Jul-23 1:53

Someone just needs to bring the biscuits and coffee. They're out of practice, and some are so shiny new that they know no other way. They need a mentor, that's all.

abmv5-Jul-23 2:29

abmv

5-Jul-23 2:29

why have meetings in the first place.. i thought AI replaced all the coders

Caveat Emptor.

"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long

MikeCO105-Jul-23 3:04

MikeCO10

5-Jul-23 3:04

Hmm, I think I'm going to disagree to some extent, or at least in many situations. Teams/Zoom has become the norm for more than laziness. I believe it may be over the top if the participants are all close to each other in the same building, on the same floor, and a conference room is handy, but in most other cases, not so much.

- If any user is remote and on teams, then all should be. Most conference rooms don't have the advanced 'speaker based' camera systems so it can be hard to tell who's talking and sometimes they may not even be totally visible.
- If anyone has to travel more than a few minutes, the time lost even without counting any social time that may come up, can be substantial.
- Some meetings are not that active and I've gotten lots of work done just lurking. In other cases, I can write some notes or even outline a code block of the discussion during the meeting. I have all the tools right in front of me and although I can bring a tablet or laptop to a meeting, it's not the same thing. Is being head down in your laptop any different than an online meeting?
- Again to time, online meetings tend to start and end on time. Sure, there are exceptions. So the hour you block out for the meeting is generally pretty close to an hour.

I'm a social person and like in-person meetings but in review of pre and post pandemic, most in-person meetings added time due to both the social piece and inefficiency.

snorkie5-Jul-23 5:34

snorkie

5-Jul-23 5:34

We have one of the speaker based camera systems in the office. The first day we had it, it was comical. We were goofing around to get it to pan and zoom and the meeting was totally unproductive...

After using it for a week, everybody hates it. The auto panning/zooming of the camera to the speaker makes people uncomfortable. We disable it whenever it is enabled.

Hogan

jschell5-Jul-23 5:37

5-Jul-23 5:37

MikeCO10 wrote:
Most conference rooms don't have the advanced 'speaker based' camera systems so it can be hard to tell who's talking and sometimes they may not even be totally visible.

I have been in those rooms. Usually takes about 15 minutes to get it set up correctly. Then you have people dribbling up to the front of the room so they can get to the spot where the camera actually works.

ormonds5-Jul-23 18:30

ormonds

5-Jul-23 18:30

Another plus of a Teams meeting - we have one person who doesn't articulate well and I generally miss most of what he has to say, not helped by my hearing. In a Teams meeting I can turn on captions and get most of it.

jschell6-Jul-23 5:57

6-Jul-23 5:57

Interesting. I did not know that existed.

obermd5-Jul-23 3:34

obermd

5-Jul-23 3:34

My weekly staff meetings are over Teams unless everyone is in the office that day. The reality is that as soon as I have to go hybrid it is simply a more effective use of everyone's time to go full virtual.

rnbergren5-Jul-23 4:25

rnbergren

5-Jul-23 4:25

if 2 are in office and 3 are virtual. It should be totally virtual.

One thing I notice is that if 2+ people are in a conference room they will have sidebar conversations that actually disrupt the meeting if the rest of the people are online. Either fully in person or fully virtual. The hybrid approach usually does not work. imho.

To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer

Matt Bond5-Jul-23 5:11

Matt Bond

5-Jul-23 5:11

If Teams wasn't so buggy, then maybe I could understand, but personally I think it's a pile of ... I'm forced to use it for work and school. Fortunately, I'm on my last class for my master's degree, so the pain will be reduced somewhat.

Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere

jschell5-Jul-23 5:51

5-Jul-23 5:51

glennPattonWork3 wrote:
how I have always designed my most successful products that way.

My most successful product was developed that way. 6 days a week in the office. I was only putting in 60-70 hours a week. (I say only because I know others who were doing more.) A total hour commute. No snow days - roads would have had to have been impassable. Weekly meetings had about 30 people crammed into a room that was at best only suited for 20.

Then there was the in person company where the daily standup where we actually stood started off every single time with the general manager rambling on about random stuff for 15-30 minutes.

Not to mention showing up at the meeting room to find out that, because there are at least two ways to reserve it, that the room is not in fact reserved because the the person that scheduled it did not use the 'right' way to do it. Ended up having a meeting in a hallway at least once because of that.

Myself I like online team meetings. Regardless of software. Quite a bit. And they have gotten quite a bit better over time. So much so that the only problem I have had for several years have been on my side.