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

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#91

Post by nh23423fefe »

doctor_eval wrote: post #70
vasco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you have a team, the team should discuss work progress, discoveries and problems in a shared space that is accessible by other team members. If conversations about the work itself happen in silos because someone is not comfortable, you're doing it wrong because you're fixing the symptom instead of the cause.

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.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#92

Post by vasco »

robertlagrant wrote: post #82
swatcoder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the “cause” is deeper than your influence can reach? What if addressing the “cause” is a multi-year endeavor? Do you send the idiosyncratic team member home and forgo what they’d otherwise bring, or do you adapt your process to make the most of the team you have? It’s great to have ideals to reference, but you miss a lot when you hold onto them as rules.

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.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#93

Post by larrik »

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'm personally tired of having the same conversation over and over as we realize we need to add more people to it. Or half the team decides on an approach in private, and then someone in the other half sees in the PR immediately that they didn't consider some huge thing and now it's back to the drawing board.

So now, everything should happen in the team's open channel.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#94

Post by rajeshp1986 »

I think this doesn't solve a fundamental problem with chat. chat has a discoverability problem. Even if you force the discussion to public chat, it is hard for someone to discover that. Chat by design is ephemeral. Sure you can scroll back and search for keywords but most probably people end up asking the same questions again.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#95

Post by ultimape »

vasco wrote: post #53
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…

If you're stressed by typing in your team chat you don't trust your team and therefore there's a deeper issue already. I strongly believe you are wrong because all the examples you mention signal different team disfunctions. You need to understand everyone is different, yes, but your team should use public channels to communicate.

Good luck with all the alcoholic types you're going to be generating as a side effect of forcing people with anxiety issues into talking in a public space. You'll be seeing self-medication for gaba dysfunctions as people try to keep their job. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303399/

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#97

Post by opmelogy »

kredd wrote: post #90
opmelogy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#98

Post by pierrebai »

swatcoder wrote: post #71
vasco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you have a team, the team should discuss work progress, discoveries and problems in a shared space that is accessible by other team members. If conversations about the work itself happen in silos because someone is not comfortable, you're doing it wrong because you're fixing the symptom instead of the cause.

What if the “cause” is deeper than your influence can reach? What if addressing the “cause” is a multi-year endeavor? Do you send the idiosyncratic team member home and forgo what they’d otherwise bring, or do you adapt your process to make the most of the team you have? It’s great to have ideals to reference, but you miss a lot when you hold onto them as rules.

You really taking a strawman extreme example I've never met in 30 years as a counter-point to "discussion should be in public as much as possible"? The article even mention that /some/ communication can still be private, but the default rule is to be public.

Your counter-point is "there are a miniscule contigent of people who can't function at all in a team". Weak.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#99

Post by exolymph »

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 have the opposite feeling. It's so much more convenient and efficient for me to communicate in text, largely because I can gather my thoughts and present them in a structured fashion. Which then becomes a reference as needed.

Re: Why public chats are better than direct messages

#100

Post by aliqot »

exolymph wrote: post #99
btkthrowaway1 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have the opposite feeling. It's so much more convenient and efficient for me to communicate in text, largely because I can gather my thoughts and present them in a structured fashion. Which then becomes a reference as needed.

Also it helps you both look back easily at goals and tasks that were defined in-conversation.
Post reply on HN