[nh2]

Asking the grandparent:

The what is the idea behind the "ideally have already read the paper, but given 10-20 minutes in silence" part?

The fact that people that have already read it have nothing to do and waste time sitting around bored sounds like an obvious flaw, are we missing something?

[otterley]

I take issue with the “ideally have already read the paper” part. That’s actually not true for most of the attendees. There will be some who have, though, and those will be your co-authors or others who have helped you prepare it before the meeting. And they don’t mind waiting in silence during the reading period, because they have a stake in the outcome.

Also, 20 minutes of respite isn’t necessarily “waste.” Having 20 minutes of time to think deeply on something is often a gift!

[kj4211cash]

Can you really think deeply in 20 min, while on zoom or in a meeting room?

I think this gets to the heart of my complaint. I thought this would increase the water level on our technical discussions. It hasn't. Like I say, could be the documents or people are poor. In any event, I'm one person that believed in this right up until my org implemented it.

[otterley]

We’re talking about the quiet reading period here. If someone has already read the document or participated in its authorship, they get 20-30 minutes of silence to think about whatever they’d like. And yes, those minutes can be a useful respite from an otherwise hectic day.

I have no idea how your org implemented the table read, so I can’t comment on why it may not have been effective there.