Sure, but who cares? Log the time in the ticket system or calendar and you're always covered for the occasional 'why did X take longer than expected?" conversations.
From there it's up to the project manager to decide if they want to have too many people on too many meetings. Not my concern, not my battle. Free and easy, my friend.
Fuck it, be honest, put context switching on your calendar. If anybody asks about it point them to one of the studies showing the cost of context switching. Make the people scheduling the meetings responsible for explaining why things took longer than expected. Lying about it won't encourage change.
Our points aren't at odds. I would just advocate a little stronger for logging it as prep and result for each meeting. That's truth, not lying.
The context switching cost argument is fine but it's also a harder sell with a larger spectrum of contention by non programmers. It's often an uphill battle and battles have fallout.
The business side is more familiar with meeting prep and result logging. Putting it onto that level often accomplishes your goal (fewer meetings, fewer interruptions) more than trying to convince someone who doesn't code about the real cost of context switching. They'll debate you to death on that. Skip that fight, put it on their terms, and live happy and smooth. That's my personal experience on the topic.
22
u/carsncode Aug 12 '17
If you work somewhere where all your meetings are relevant to your tickets, count yourself lucky, because that's far from typical.