Why public chats are better than direct messages • Hacker News Board

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#111

Post by speeder » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

opmelogy wrote: post #97

kredd wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one of my previous workplaces, my coworker and I used to exchange very… NSFW language while debugging certain bugs. It was all in good spirit and humour, everyone knew that’s how we communicate with each other, and it helped to alleviate the tensions for us. Obviously we would also give out statements in public channels to explain what we’ve done and so, but in a more public-friendly way. It’s like having drinks a…

Ah gotcha. In this case it's not actually that you are hiding away and doing all your work via DM. You're just using it for smaller discussions and then circle back with the larger team to share info. That totally makes sense. I was thinking that the OP for this comment thread was claiming that there are situations where public comments/knowledge sharing isn't needed for teams, which makes no sense to me.

I had a situation where some stuff isn't done in the public channel out of politeness.

For example: While working with text written by non-native speaker, had to explain often to some members of the team t hat the text was just awful and needed a complete rewrite. But I didn't want to type this in public so that the "culprit" wouldn't feel like I was out to get him or something.

At least in my culture, it is extremely rude to berate people in public, so I extended this to also considering rude to "blame" people in public when explaining why work is late.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#112

Post by MetaWhirledPeas » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 8:00 PM UTC

doctor_eval wrote: post #21

As I read this, I got the sinking feeling that I'd read it all before. But then I realised, it's just another case of someone thinking that their specific solution is best, solely on the basis that it worked for them, in their specific circumstances. But here's the thing: every group is different, has different needs, and will respond differently to different styles of communication. Some people (especially people no…

> There is no single correct way, and we know this because, if there was, then we wouldn't keep hearing about these interminable "solutions".

Yes, this is very true, and it varies not only by person but by situation. But most people have a default that they respond best to.

- Some prefer IM

- Some prefer email and will respond to a group discussion with an email (sigh)

- Some prefer direct phone calls and will completely ignore your IMs

- Some prefer group chat

- Some prefer more formal group chats (MS Teams calls these "channels")

- Some want you to walk right up to them and start talking

The truth is you probably need a mishmash:

- There's a time and place for group emails, most notably when you need to include an outsider, or if you want a better paper trail of the conversation

- If your team is accepting of it, some form of group chat really is super effective at greasing the wheels, but I find it's inappropriate for lengthy, detailed conversations. Then it truly does become noise.

- Direct IMs, direct emails, phone calls, and foot traffic are all extremely easy to abuse and should always be used judiciously. None of these should be the default unless you know this is someone's preference; it's just rude.

The other side of the coin is that if a team member chooses not to be adaptable they are limiting their own ability to contribute. If you want to be a finicky communicator don't be surprised if you get the dull work or get overlooked when promotions come around.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#113

Post by mr_tristan » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 8:13 PM UTC

I see this more as a challenge of managing the different threads of communication. Basically, threads, as they are implemented in most chat apps, just suck. If you're not involved in that particular thread, you tend to just skip over it. And most of the time, you have to manually interact with each thread to figure out what's going on.

As a more real-world example, in Slack, you can decide to use more channels instead of having a big channel with lots of threads. But this tends to need a lot of discipline on channel management. Places devise naming conventions, etc. Or maybe they integrate with some other tool to manage the conversations.

So, a lot of my DMs tend to just be me and a "tiger team" on a particular subject. Which is really just a workaround to not having to figure out channel management. It's not a carefully thought through system, it's a workaround to our current crop of chat tools.

Personally, I've found older "discussion forum" systems do a better job of threading instead of a chat-style tool. But maybe I'm just getting to be an old person.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#114

Post by dijonman2 » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 8:22 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #68

doctor_eval wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just going to add that it looks like this is some kind of Slack hasslebot dystopia. They want all conversations in public so they can data mine them? From the home page, > Teamplify | Hey @anna.austin, we haven't seen updates for PROJ-716 since Thursday, July 19. Could you please add a comment there summarizing your progress as of today.

Chat clients as TPS devices. Wonderful.

Slack is super annoying when used this way. I miss IRC.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#115

Post by dijonman2 » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

opmelogy wrote: post #88

doctor_eval wrote: post #21

As I read this, I got the sinking feeling that I'd read it all before. But then I realised, it's just another case of someone thinking that their specific solution is best, solely on the basis that it worked for them, in their specific circumstances. But here's the thing: every group is different, has different needs, and will respond differently to different styles of communication. Some people (especially people no…

I'm curious what sorts of groups/contexts working together wouldn't benefit from this. I'm having a hard time coming up with examples. If we're assuming that group activity means people that are all working on the same product, I can't see an argument for DM's and private conversations.

Speaking in public can invite unwanted opinions. There’s always someone who wants to argue, seemingly for sport.

Closed channels for teams are good but not everything is a democracy. I let my team make decisions but I can veto any of them, if needed.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#116

Post by Trasmatta » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 9:07 PM UTC

inanutshellus wrote: post #107

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.

Except sometimes private chats are the best place for work conversations.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#117

Post by doctor_eval » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

nh23423fefe wrote: post #91

doctor_eval wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you propose you “fix” the cause, which is some human being’s discomfort at working in a particular way? Do you force them? Sack them? Threaten them? Or just send them for reprogramming? Honestly, this is just cargo cult stuff.

It's not my job to fix someone else's dysfunction. It's their job to speak in public about work. Being uncomfortable isn't a veto. All your criticism is just framing. It presupposes pathological work practices are actually just personal quirks. If you can't type a question in a slack with 20 members you are basically useless.

I’m actually saying that pathological work rules will mean you don’t get the most out of your team.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#118

Post by nijave » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

I agree with the sentiment, but in practice there are plenty of times where it's best to limit the audience. Posting in a public channel with more than a handful of people can lead to multithreaded discussions spiralling in various directions that aren't relevant to the original post.

It can also lead to issues when members of the chat have varying degrees of context. Shared understanding is ideal, but it's impractical for everyone to be aware of everything so there's a balance to strike.

Public chats are somewhere between the extreme of broadcasting everything to everyone and talking only in private chats. There's definitely a lot of middle ground.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#119

Post by nijave » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, not sure why people like to take PR discussions private so much. One workaround is to just post summaries of the private conversations as comments after the fact.

"Discussed A, B, C with and we agreed on "

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#120

Post by nijave » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

gregwebs wrote: post #14

There is a third option. When ever there is a private or out of band discussion, summarize it in the public discussion. Done well, this makes for the best of both worlds in part because it reduces the text that others need to read. However, it requires discipline and extra effort on the part of those having the private conversation.

Yeah or bring it up in a meeting. It could be a quick reference in a daily team meeting/standup or a short 15 minute meeting.