[PeterFBell]

I think it's more important to count clarify, brevity and value than number of attendees. I have a fast growing team where 12 people reporting to three different departments have to work closely together to align instruction, coaching and curriculum. We have a 12 person daily standup. It runs 15 minutes (20 tops) and as well as creating a social situation to engage enjoyably with our peers (we're a remote first team so if we don't meet we don't interact) it also allows us to learn of the various initiatives people are working on, problem students they're dealing with, etc. Even though it's a 12 person meeting, it's probably the most valuable 15 minutes of the day as our biggest challenge is alignment, not production/creation.

I generally hate meetings, but as long as they have a clear agenda, the shortest possible duration, the smallest number of required attendees to achieve the clearly defined outcomes (and allow for optional attendees if people are interested), I find they are a great way of moving forward discussions that bogged down after trying to manage them via an email chain.

[valuearb]

We have a 10 person daily standup that takes 30 minutes. The difference is leadership I think. Our meeting host struggles to cut off discussions that should be taken outside of the standup.

[praneshp]

Yeah at a previous job we had a six person team regularly doing almost hour long stand-ups (daily). First time I was thankful for job mobility in silicon valley.