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

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#21

Post by doctor_eval »

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 not using their first language) can find working in public stressful; some people get very stressed by the intensity of 1:1s. It takes all types, and as a manager, understanding how to get the best out of everyone is part of the job.

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

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#22

Post by jrootabega »

mjburgess wrote: post #18
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…

If you explain your motivations well (& politely & thinking about their POV), I suspect you'll not get that branding. "Hey, sure I can answer your questions, but I often find it helps to do that in public so we have a track record... etc. etc. And I'm not immediately available, so I'll get to it soon..."

Yeah, that's necessary, but I think there are cultures and situations where it's not sufficient, unfortunately.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#23

Post by chiefalchemist »

mjburgess wrote: post #18
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…

If you explain your motivations well (& politely & thinking about their POV), I suspect you'll not get that branding. "Hey, sure I can answer your questions, but I often find it helps to do that in public so we have a track record... etc. etc. And I'm not immediately available, so I'll get to it soon..."

Good suggestion. Adding...

It's tough to fight habit and culture. As the article points out, it's *all* about comms. That's a 101 statement. Having to explain the value of comms (and documentation) isn't something you should have to do. So if you are, chances are good they won't get it.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#24

Post by jrootabega »

dmos62 wrote: post #6
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…

> Some people get it. But overall in the cultures I've done it in, it mostly gets me branded as difficult. Sorry to hear that. Getting the right balance of sync and async, and knowing when to use one or the other makes a big difference. In my current team we went through multiple iterations to come to a mix that works for us. If it's too much sync, the constant sync conversations drain you; if it's too much async, co…

True. And I guess you need to be prepared to favor sync at first for newer problems and colleagues. Once you understand each other better, the ambiguity of content and tone in async lessens.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#25

Post by Vinnl »

mjburgess wrote: post #18
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…

If you explain your motivations well (& politely & thinking about their POV), I suspect you'll not get that branding. "Hey, sure I can answer your questions, but I often find it helps to do that in public so we have a track record... etc. etc. And I'm not immediately available, so I'll get to it soon..."

Yeah, and: if people resist, then let it be. It would've been better, but it's not important enough to sour relationships about, even if just a little bit.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#28

Post by kaashif »

ungamedplayer wrote: post #9
dmos62 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people get it. But overall in the cultures I've done it in, it mostly gets me branded as difficult. Sorry to hear that. Getting the right balance of sync and async, and knowing when to use one or the other makes a big difference. In my current team we went through multiple iterations to come to a mix that works for us. If it's too much sync, the constant sync conversations drain you; if it's too much async, co…

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.

Most actionable code review comments are criticism. People have to be able to avoid taking criticism of their code personally, and to write criticism in an inoffensive way.

The whole team should be able to look at and learn from code reviews, and the best way to do that is if it's in the open for the whole team or company to see. I'm not sure if truly "public" is possible for most companies, so I'm not talking about that.

I would say that you're right about other kinds of feedback, like criticism about (mis)conduct, attitude, etc. That should for sure be done in private.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#29

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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'm back in a team setting again - we've got face-to-face, Slack, Teams / email, and Gitlab as communcations channels (too many different ones for my liking), and I'm already noticing how everything important seems to have to be repeated 2-3 times; there's the informal one to one, there's stand-up and other meetings, and then usually someone isn't around due to holidays or working part-time and they have to be caught up first.

If these things were written down there might be less of them. Might. It might just be part and parcel of working in a more enterprisey setting again.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#30

Post by BlargMcLarg »

jsz0 wrote: post #27

It's still kind of crazy to me how cutting edge modern commutation in 2022 is basically just IRC from the 1990s.

You think that's crazy, wait until you open a book written in the 60s explaining solutions today.

The real crazy thing is how slow our nontechnical progress is.

Post reply on HN