Gitlab Handbook's HN Page • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#141

Post by rossmohax » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:58 AM UTC

simpss wrote: post #137

beachy wrote: post #70

This culture of radical openness must be quite refreshing for people inside the company. A lot of companies would never want this sort of thing to be out in the open. But really, why not? I imagine it helps to keep things sensible if you know that a thousand eyes could be trawling over your employee policies. You're certainly not going to be promoting astroturfing or other undesirable activities. At the same time, yo…

Starting to change though. Personalized analytics and tracking roll-out (including on-prem) was pulled back ~2 years ago[0], they're on another try[1] currently with a heavy-handed hiding approach. Including small additions to release notes[1], short lived and hard to find feedback threads[2] etc... Including deleting/hiding tickets that get posted on HN[3][4] and contain plans/info that users might take negatively/p…

Also prompt departure of their VP of compliance after her concerns about discriminatory practices where dismissed/ignored in the open discussion thread.

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#142

Post by jjgreen » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

gumby wrote: post #84

throwthere wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of makes you wonder what they learned was key on other channels.

They Found Out What Worked On Other Platforms And The Answer Will Astonish You.

What works on other platforms: Safe or Scam?

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#143

Post by Dave3of5 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:25 AM UTC

Gitlab really trying their hardest to seem like a "nice" company here.

The software is OK (the cloud offering is unstable compared to similar offerings). The company though is another thing altogether not a great place to work. This is a pure PR post which is being used to show them in a better light.

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#144

Post by dubcanada » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:29 AM UTC

Dave3of5 wrote: post #143

Gitlab really trying their hardest to seem like a "nice" company here. The software is OK (the cloud offering is unstable compared to similar offerings). The company though is another thing altogether not a great place to work. This is a pure PR post which is being used to show them in a better light.

You can’t just say it’s not a great place to work without expanding on that with details of some sort.

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#145

Post by capableweb » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

Dave3of5 wrote: post #143

Gitlab really trying their hardest to seem like a "nice" company here. The software is OK (the cloud offering is unstable compared to similar offerings). The company though is another thing altogether not a great place to work. This is a pure PR post which is being used to show them in a better light.

> The company though is another thing altogether not a great place to work

I have no affiliation with Gitlab besides I've tried their self-hosted option years ago. But comments like this without any substance behind it leave a sour taste in my mouth. "why is it not a great place to work at?" and "how do you know this?" are the first two questions that come to mind that are the bare minimum that should be added, otherwise your comment is just borderline gossiping.

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#146

Post by OJFord » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

andrewzah wrote: post #106

d3nj4l wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should consider moving that slack to discord. Discord has unlimited server history for free with pretty good search. The only features you lose compared to slack are ones that are largely only useful for organisations. (If you do move it to discord, invite pls :P)

...Can we not have more projects move to a proprietary, closed source chat system? (And one that tracks every mouse movement you make...) Zulip, Discourse, Element(formerly Riot) / Matrix all exist and are fairly nice. And of course, IRC. Searching works well for Zulip/Element.

If they move from a different proprietary closed source chat system.. meh?

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#147

Post by OJFord » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:38 AM UTC

pottertheotter wrote: post #53

slater wrote: post #47

Anyone else think this is a bit... icky? If you have to game the "system", sorry, I mean, provide "social media guidelines" to this extent, maaaaybe your [whatever you're trying to push/advertise/spread] isn't all that worthwhile...? Especially in the "nerd" world, it seems word of mouth will get out without having to rely on such inane strategizing. I understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and other co…

I initially felt that way but less so as I read. Also, any large company has procedures for PR. It’s a part of life.

Same, I especially liked the 'don't submit content, make interesting content that someone else wants to submit' point.

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#148

Post by dang » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:44 AM UTC

romanhn wrote: post #15

VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #12

This is so meta, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it

The funniest part is how quickly this got upvoted to the top. HN sure loves meta! (Not to be confused with Meta ;)

Meta is the crack of internet forums.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#149

Post by dang » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:46 AM UTC

Shadonototra wrote: post #83

That sums up what Hacker News exactly is A community used to drive interest in marketing ops/acquisition/IPOs up People at HN know that very well, in fact, very often, the companies that get to front page are somewhat related to HN, very often they are investors ;)

That's not what Hacker News is. If it were, it wouldn't be interesting. If it weren't interesting, it wouldn't have a valuable community. If it didn't have a valuable community, people wouldn't be using it to try to get attention for their companies in the first place.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Gitlab Handbook's HN Page

#150

Post by capableweb » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:48 AM UTC

What I feel is missing here is upvote/downvote etiquette, but I fear that's on purpose. Often times it feels like criticism of Gitlab gets downvoted easily in the comments of various Gitlab submissions, even if it's valid. Since it's now clear it's an official stance for Gitlab employees to lurk and comment on HN submissions, maybe including something like "Don't upvote/downvote comments based on if you agree personally or not with something, but based on if they are thoughtful and substantive, since HN is about curious conversations" or similar.