Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why public chats are better than direct messages

teamplify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#101

Post by opportune »

btkthrowaway1 wrote: post #84
jrootabega wrote: post #4

This is why, when a colleague has a question about a pull request, or my feedback on THEIR pull request, I push us to have the discussion in the PR comments, instead of the pernicious "I just have a few questions, it will only take a few minutes" that always adds up to more time and attention than people claim. There ARE often situations where opening a synchronous communication channel is necessary, but even then, y…

I really despise working with people who behave like this. The main problem is this turns the disucssion into written and asychronous. On a phone call there is so much more nuance, so many more questions that can be asked and so much more information for both parties. When it's just async written messages, I'm constantly only able to say 1/10th of what's on my mind only for it to be misunderstood by the other person…

I am on the opposite end of these questions and feel quite differently. Code review tools are great at letting you ask questions about specific parts of the code. And they leave a record so you can go back and show someone else the discussion/others can follow.

It’s also, not necessarily disrespectful, but a very inefficient use of my time to spend 20 minutes chatting with someone about why you need to add a test in XYZ and make sure you check A - when I can do that in just a few minutes exactly when I’m ready otherwise. Because I am reviewing 5+ peoples’ code and have my own things to do as well. The asyncness is necessary for me to manage my time. I can also read much faster than I can listen, and it takes me longer to explain something with words than to find a couple links and write out a few sentences about something.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#102

Post by theptip »

larrik wrote: post #93

I feel I disagree with most of the comments here, and agree with the article, even if its a little shallow and short. For starters, he's talking about communications within a team , not the whole company. Should all work conversation happen in a single #general channel on slack (or whatever the equivalent is wherever)? Absolutely not. For a long time my boss was a big proponent of this, and I was against it. However,…

I don’t think the OP at any point advocated for using one channel. That’s a horrible approach IMO.

Public vs DM just means (to me at least) “put all comms in the relevant channel, never in a DM”.

I’d go so far as to advocate temporary channels for individual projects but not everyone buys into that. At least have team and working-group/functional channels.

Basically it’s analogous to email (point-to-point) vs. archived mailing lists (which anyone can subscribe or view after the fact). Mailing lists and public slack still have threads/channels.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#103

Post by 616c »

jrootabega wrote: post #4

This is why, when a colleague has a question about a pull request, or my feedback on THEIR pull request, I push us to have the discussion in the PR comments, instead of the pernicious "I just have a few questions, it will only take a few minutes" that always adds up to more time and attention than people claim. There ARE often situations where opening a synchronous communication channel is necessary, but even then, y…

Very relatable Let me know where you end up that people appreciate it and I'll come join you!

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#104

Post by opportune »

jrootabega wrote: post #4

This is why, when a colleague has a question about a pull request, or my feedback on THEIR pull request, I push us to have the discussion in the PR comments, instead of the pernicious "I just have a few questions, it will only take a few minutes" that always adds up to more time and attention than people claim. There ARE often situations where opening a synchronous communication channel is necessary, but even then, y…

I have mostly seen juniors/other people who lack self confidence are the ones who most want to push code reviews into “quick chats.” I’m happy to help when they are very new so I can explain a bunch of things, but it really frustrates me when people continue to do this long after joining.

I also think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding in what code review is - half the time I’m basically not invested at all in the outcome of the particular review, I am just giving my time and knowledge to help make sure that we produce good code. When people start these sync chats I have to context switch a lot and people often think I’m super opinionated on the outcome (so ask me lots of open ended questions I’m not prepared to answer), which is not what I intend to convey when I say you need to test something or document some particularly confusing part because it seems pretty likely to break.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#105

Post by robertlagrant »

vasco wrote: post #92
robertlagrant wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It's just like when people say, "Well, if that's your problem, you need to fix your hiring process." It's amazing how many theories require perfect hiring.

I didn't mention hiring, but if you can't build trust in your teams as a manager you failed your first job. This is not like choosing kanban vs scrum, if your team members can't even speak comfortably you're not running a team, you're telling individuals what to do, which might be what you want to do, but then don't call it a team.

"it's just like" is making a comparison. I know you didn't mention hiring.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#106

Post by guenthert »

newbieuser wrote: post #11

I do not agree . Unfortunately, most people lack basic communication skills. I don't think it's good for nonsense to come out of a one-to-one message and be on a channel.

Well, for one it isn't quite clear what comprises basic communication skills.

"I don't think it's good for nonsense to come out of a one-to-one message and be on a channel."

I have no idea what you tried to convey there (did auto-correct mangle the words?).

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#107

Post by inanutshellus »

Trasmatta wrote: post #47

Something that I've found really valuable about private chats is the ability to build rapport and trust with immediate team members in a way that just isn't quite the same in a public channel. You need both. I don't like the idea of setting policies of "almost all communication should be done in public channels". Humans need both types of communication, and I think it's a mistake to try to enforce your team to always…

The private chats should be for non-work conversations. DMs are for private/personal/rapport-building conversations. There's no reason you can't have both going at the exact same time.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#109

Post by cardanome »

kqr wrote: post #10
ungamedplayer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have learned that its good to praise in public, criticise in private. It is possible to have criticism in PR's private inside a company which reduces its "publicness" but some people are still sensitive even with the reduced exposure.

I hate that idea. If I criticise an idea in public, and I'm wrong in my criticism, then five other people will immediately correct me. Or provide nuance and perspective I miss. Also with private criticism, any decision tends to gravitate toward the opinion of the highest paid person. If the debate happens in public, everyone has more of an equal chance to be heard. ---- Edit: almost forgot! Private criticism also lea…

> Also with private criticism, any decision tends to gravitate toward the opinion of the highest paid person. If the debate happens in public, everyone has more of an equal chance to be heard.

This. When I get criticized in private on an technical matter by someone more senior than me and disagree with them there isn't much I can do. Maybe I already have a good relationship with them and we can talk it out but if not I just have to suck it up. I can maybe escalate to higher up but that is also very risky and might more harm than good.

There isn't much I can do to defend myself.

In public there is a chance of other people offering their opinion. Senior people might get kept in check if their critic seems too unreasonable to the rest of the team.

I think a good rule is to criticize technical stuff in public and personal stuff in private.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#110

Post by newbieuser »

guenthert wrote: post #106
newbieuser wrote: post #11

I do not agree . Unfortunately, most people lack basic communication skills. I don't think it's good for nonsense to come out of a one-to-one message and be on a channel.

Well, for one it isn't quite clear what comprises basic communication skills. "I don't think it's good for nonsense to come out of a one-to-one message and be on a channel." I have no idea what you tried to convey there (did auto-correct mangle the words?).

nevermind. we won't be able to communicate anyway :)
Post reply on HN