Hacker News Reader

> If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place.

I don't understand how this could possibly be justified. We used to have conference calls all the time, they did seem to work so we kept having them... it's just that everyone has cameras now.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to harass people to turn their cameras on. Is there some kind of business reason why the cameras need to be turned on? Or is it just preference?

> There is nothing more annoying than to have an in-person meeting from the past devolve into staring at a wall of stills or icons and then to figure out who says what and to keep a conversation going.

That's an interesting experience, I wonder why that's happening to your team. This does not match my experience with voice-only calls.

There are valid reasons to ask people to turn their cameras on, and there are reasonable policies for using cameras in meetings, but it doesn't seem to me that an "always use cameras" or "never use cameras" policy is going to work as well as a more flexible policy.

Even interviews--I've done interviews both over voice and with a camera, and I've never felt like the camera gave me some significant benefit... either as interviewer or candidate. There are definitely exceptions, like for people who are partially deaf, but in general it's better to be flexible. People have different preferences and the interaction tends to go more smoothly if you're not a stickler for keeping your camera one way or another.

I think they are trying to say, if you want a conference call have a conference call. I think there is an argument to be made that virtual meetings are separate and not simply an enhancement of a conference call.

The term "conference call" just means remote meeting with voice only. It does not have some subtler meaning. (Although it's not a "conference call" if it's only two people.)

In my experience, conference calls never managed to replace travel, but in many cases video calls have done so. Even my consultant friends who travelled extensively now use video.

In that respect, conference calls did not work, and cameras are important.

Conference calls didn't obviate in-person meetings, but (as people are discovering) video calls didn't either.

There are, of course, exceptions. Just like some companies are 100% remote with video calls, people also did 100% remote work with phone conferencing and snail mail, prior to the internet.

I'm glad I don't work for you, then. I have no problem with real-life meetings, but in virtual meetings I always feel on edge because it's impossible to know who's looking at me, because sight-lines don't work.

So I never turn on my camera, and neither do many other people in the team, and everything is fine.

> If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place.

That's a very black and white view. We (also relatively small company) take a much more flexible route. Some meetings, use a camera, like when you're presenting something to a group it adds to the story to see facial expression etc. Lots of other meetings use voice only, similar to how you just call someone when you have a question. Adding video doesn't change the answer and puts restrictions on participants to sit still in front of a camera while voice only can be done with a headset walking around.

Your meetings are IMPORTANT. Your time is important. Most of the schlubs here spend lots of time in meetings where they listen to people talk about things that have little to do with them, or decisions are made where they have no input. You don't live in the "this meeting should have been a 6 line email world." For real, actual, important meetings I 100% agree with you, but that's not representative of SOO much time people around here spend.

"if you don't want to have your camera on you are asked not to participate"

This policy is cruel and needlessly authoritative. I work in a highly international context and have learned that both culturally and individually, people have different comfort levels regarding expressing themselves. Some are fine with cameras on, some prefer voice only. Some are so introverted that they prefer chat, and some are even only comfortable with private chat.

"If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place."

Good, stop inviting me then, I'd imagine a response might be. I personally have about 3 voice-only meetings per day, but I guess according to your view, I shouldn't bother at all. I successfully lead a team of 12 this way, located across the globe. People can do whatever they want (camera, audio, chat), and it works fine. Your all or nothing view seems a dramatized personal preference, and nothing else.

"and then to figure out who says what"

I don't know what software you use but both in Zoom and Teams you can see who speaks. I would also assume that if your team is so small that you recognize voices.

"and to keep a conversation going"

If you need to keep a conversation going, you may want to rethink the point of the meeting.

>We are pretty small and have a 'camera on' policy for our one one hour meeting on Friday every week, and if you don't want to have your camera on you are asked not to participate

Wow, the whole team gets to see my unsmiling face staring at a screen for hours, what a productivity boost. Absolute bunk, you should be looking at the screen-share anyway.

> If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place.

It seems pretty common for a bystander to make a few key decisions and rare points in a meeting, and yes, their time is valuable, but not as valuable as the 6 other people in the meeting.

Think product owner and developers. Product owner isn't involved while developers dive into the weeds, but an occasional clarification from the product owner saves everyone time. And the product owner can hardly consider their own time more valuable than the collective time of 6 developers who are creating the actual deliverable.

If your meeting conduct depends on seeing a talking head, something is off. I can recognize who is talking in an instant because I know the voices of people

Interviews, granted, getting to know a person it’s good to see a face.

For most meetings a voice call is sufficient, for those meetings where a voice call is not sufficient you probably want an in-person meeting with a whiteboard anyway

Getting to know people and their voices does take some time, so cameras can be useful when the team (or some new teammate) is new. I'd like to think we can play it by ear but I feel like teams get into habits and any change is considered odd.

Otherwise Agreed. And, for what it's worth, many of those whiteboard meetings can now also be conducted remotely (I humbly submit our app, ShareTheBoard, as an example solution).

What do your team members say of your view to the idea?

Nobody speaks out against this stuff. People just quit and go to a truly remote friendly place instead.

Next time you are in a conversation about remote work, see if you notice this: the only people who speak up are the ones who say "I can't wait to go to the office". The rest smile and nod. And yet online polls show a very different picture.

A massive red flag indeed, the parent comment is a text book example of traditional "manage by presence", not to mention an authoritative top-down culture.