Leave someone off the invite, have side-bar convos via slack without people knowing, mute people in calls -- and being the loudest, pushiest person in the room absolutely works on skype if the meeting presenter won't mute you.
Remote working does remove some of the rapport and chemistry from relationships, which is regrettable, but on the other hand it also reduces the ability for people to 'dominate the room', intimidate, etc.
These kinds of people are sometimes intellectual giants, but very often simply bullies.
But I find well-aimed questions can often derail attempts to railroad a situation from a position of power, and it can be very uncomfortable to field those questions in an in-person setting. Much less so remotely.
No matter what, some group of people is going to be at a disadvantage. It doesn't really make sense to me that you want everyone to specifically cater for the minority, as opposed to the majority.
Trying to somewhat accommodate everyone? Great. Forcing changes to accommodate minorities? Doesn't really make sense to me.
1. Fully abled people are already, as John Scalzi put it (with regard to another category), playing on the lowest difficulty setting, across all of their lives. SO I think it's not so bad to take away some advantages, to level the playing field.
2. There are different kinds of disadvantages. There are disadvantages from skills you haven't yet learned, and there are disadvantages from abilities you can never have. What I propose is to replace the latter category for some people with the former category for others. Of course, if biotech someday allows us to give physical abilities to people who don't have them, that changes the equation. And perhaps my thick accent example was weak; my understanding is that it's possible, with great difficulty, to change one's accent.
I have seen people suddenly develop this trait on amphetamines, but ruining your health by abusing amphetamine to have charisma isn't a great trade. This observation does make me wonder if it doesn't have something to do with dopamine levels/sensitivity and whatever other systems amphetamine acts upon. People with bipolar disorder can be superhumanly charismatic when they are in a manic phase, and moderate to heavy amphetamine doses more or less approximate mania (in people without ADD/ADHD).
Like height and facial symmetry it's a trait that is unrelated to the content of one's mind but heavily biases people toward you in one on one interactions... regardless of the merit of what you're actually saying or doing.
The different favorable trait would then have effect on the productivity, though. Asynchronous communication is way more friendlier to deep work like programming.
I don't know if I'm talking too much or if they are bored. Online I'm quick/short.
That said, I enjoy being a tech guy over a leader. I tried leadership in done personal business and I don't like playing politics or psychology tricks.