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…
Why public chats are better than direct messages
31–40 of 139 posts
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#32This 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…
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#33It's still kind of crazy to me how cutting edge modern commutation in 2022 is basically just IRC from the 1990s.
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#34This 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…
Honestly, that does sound difficult. I get what you're trying to achieve, but if I'm trying to land a change, having a synchronous conversation (ideally in person) will resolve any misunderstandings between us on the order of minutes. Having an asynchronous back-and-forth takes on the order of hours or even days. And what do you get for your time? A nice record you can look back on? What are you going to use that for…
I think a lot of the effort that people perceive has to go towards async discussions is actually just resistance effort, too. When multiple people embrace it it can be surprisingly easy.
And a lot of times people push the async method because the environment is already difficult -- for them. Sometimes certain team members get bogged down in focus work and want to get that done as much as others want to have a discussion. How to have good conversations in the ideal workplace is one thing; how to have them in more dysfunctional situations is another.
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#35This 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…
Honestly, that does sound difficult. I get what you're trying to achieve, but if I'm trying to land a change, having a synchronous conversation (ideally in person) will resolve any misunderstandings between us on the order of minutes. Having an asynchronous back-and-forth takes on the order of hours or even days. And what do you get for your time? A nice record you can look back on? What are you going to use that for…
This is the price we pay for not knowing what's going to be important in the future. If we knew that, we could mark the messages immediately and have them pushed into the FAQ or the wiki or whatever.
By obvious corollary, message archives need good full-text searching or else they are useless.
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#36This 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…
Actually, I suspect some people don't like to write and/or read; for some it might even be stressful. Not everyone is an author, and at a smaller scale not everyone is comfortable with written communication. It is true that is more difficult than interactive Q&R.
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#37Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#38Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#39As 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…
Presuming that information asymmetry will hold over time is a bad assumption, regardless of cost of information security controls.
Why have these new collaborative innovative services succeeded where NNTP and > > indented, text-wrapped email forwards for new onboards have not?
Instead of Chat or IM, hopefully working on Issues with checkbox Tasks and Edges; and Pull Requests composed of Commits, Comments, and Code Reviews; with conditional Branch modification rules; will produce Products: deliverables of value to the customer, per the schema:Organization's Mission.
What style of communication is appropriate for a team in which phase of development, regardless of communications channel?
Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages
#40It's still kind of crazy to me how cutting edge modern commutation in 2022 is basically just IRC from the 1990s.