41–50 of 225 posts
the premises and all good to know sections are useful. the other sections are too prescriptive as to other peoples behaviour to be useful. it reads more like a guide on working for you, less a guide for working with you. these should give people the context and "why" of working with you, not the prescriptive steps required. the use of "we" everywhere is the tell here. the readme is about you, not me.
Title editorialized. Original title is "How to work with me". To quote dang from 12 hours ago: > It's against the HN guidelines to editorialize titles like this. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corporate language is a turn off. If we are dealing with human problems, the sterile corporate speak isn't going to get us to a solution.
Can you point to specific examples? This is very much a living document, always looking for ways to improve it.
Other than that: the whole thing comes across as hopelessly naive with respect to how humans interact, it misses the fact that people that dislike each other on a personal level may be forced to work with one another and it misses the 'office politics' angle.
If I was assigned to a team to work with you and you handed me this document I would in turn hand in my resignation with reference to your document and that would be that, any organization that tolerates this kind of bs is not one that I would want to work for.
I was hoping this would be more like a car or airplane manual. “Failure to maintain adequate vitamin C levels may cause scurvy. Go to service center if this happens. Maintain blood pressure within limits (see specifications).” Etc.
To me, it seems a little condescending to be told how to act toward someone. On some level it is helpful to know your teammates, but on the other hand it can come across as self centered, like you think you're special and require special instructions for interacting with. I'm sure you have good intentions in creating this, but if someone gave this to me I would instantly thing "oh man this person is going to be high…
The corporate language is a turn off. If we are dealing with human problems, the sterile corporate speak isn't going to get us to a solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to specific examples? This is very much a living document, always looking for ways to improve it.
The "My expectations when we work together" looks like it's copied directly from a HR boilerplate example somewhere. It sounds nice but I wouldn't know how to action any of that. Also if you are my peer, you setting expectations like that is inappropriate.
The document also makes you sound like a condescending person to me (though it's difficult to judge without knowing the greater context).
If my analysis is correct, a different way around the bad experiences is to detach from them and learn to recognize the unfortunate situations as they come up early on. But if they are too frequent the problem could be your attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the page? Re: "no person will ever want to read this page": I have read the manual, I found it quite refreshing actually. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I was thinking of creating a manual of my own, and a curious thought occurred to me while reading your response (and other negative responses in this thread): the kind of people who are repelled by this sort of thing are probably not the…
of course not! why would i?