@saxnot
> it presents a more robust framework for evaluating the necessarily of meetings

the assumption there is that meetings are necessary.

i still stand by the point that almost every meeting (really many nines) is unnecessary. often they are dominated by people who like to hear themselves talk, not the ones who have the most knowledge about a topic. someone has to note all the major points discussed for reference to be distributed later. some of the issues with meetings may be circumvented by e.g. good moderation, but it's essentially a broken system. the higher the level, the more bullshitty the meetings are. the most productive exchanges are possibly small informal team meetings with few participants. there you _might_ have a "warm magical human interaction".

with an email thread (or whatever textual form) everyone has enough time to reply, and the discussion itself is the reference. hell, it's even easier to create a summary because it's all text. classic big free software/open source projects (linux, bsds, etc.) all use mail because it works.