"Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" wrote:
>> There is value in having to pass some form of "is it worth it" test -
>> no matter who will be actually paying for it.
> Doesn't remote meeting participation show some sort of counter-argument
> ? Cost is zero, and I haven't noted much disruption in current meetings
> (though that would be possible).
Remote participation has a non-incremental cost to the person.
The return on investment can be negative if the person who is remote has not
made human contacts with others that seems to be necessary to establish
enough trust to get work adopted and progressed. While exceptional people
can do this by email, and this was easier before the continuous September,
it is, I think exceptional.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
