[HN Gopher] If it will matter after today, don't talk about it i... ___________________________________________________________________ If it will matter after today, don't talk about it in a chat room Author : mcrittenden Score : 384 points Date : 2021-01-12 19:09 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (critter.blog) (TXT) w3m dump (critter.blog) | danShumway wrote: | > I'm not saying live chat is useless. It's great at some things: | | > - Quick answers to quick questions | | > - Low-stakes status updates | | > - Swarming around red alerts or outages | | Well OK, but the problem is that sometimes those things also | matter after today. So in practice, it often does end up being | better to just save everything in an indexable form, because you | can't realistically decide in advance to every conversation | whether or not it's going to be important. You can pretend to, | you can put every conversation you're going to have in one of | those bins -- but you'll just be pretending, you're not going to | get the prediction right every time. | | The second problem is that sometimes conversations fluctuate and | change form, and it is not uncommon to have a good long-form | conversation that needs to occasionally dip into quick questions | and status updates. When the boundaries between your chat | environments are too rigid, you can have the same productivity | losses because people delay having important conversations or | just avoid them entirely. This kind of categorization of | communication often ignores that communication is extremely | fluid. You can change between longform training and technical | discussion, quick status updates and questions, and even | affirmation multiple times during the same conversation. | | Most people on HN already understand how much harm context | switching and interruptions can be for productivity in | programming. But the same can also be true in communication. If | you're in the middle of a chat and there's a clear opportunity | in-line with what you're already talking about to explain | something or reach a decision, you are basically imposing a giant | context switch if you say, "well, no, don't talk about it. Let's | all schedule a meeting." Or even if you just say, "keep it in | your head until you get back to your desk and then email me." | | Sometimes that interruption is warranted, and sometimes it costs | a lot of focus/productivity for very little gain. It's | situational. | | I'm not sure it's wise to have binary rules about how and where | people on your team should communicate. A lot of the advice I see | around team organization and management ends up being generally | good advice but taken to the extreme, where it wraps back around | to being a barrier to actually getting stuff done. Encouraging | people to use email for longform technical discussion is a good | idea, but I suspect that trying to make some kind of policy about | may be a bad idea for most orgs. | k__ wrote: | _" Despite the "asychronous" claim, you have to keep a steady eye | on it and reply in realtime or the conversation will move on | without you."_ | | For me, sync and async communication is a spectrum and chat (as | it is used in the majority of companies) is more on the sync half | of it. | | I'm currently thinking about building a microblogging alternative | to Slack, that will be more on the async side, not as much as | email though. | nicktorba wrote: | There really needs to be some sort of mix between chat and a | collaborative note-taking app. | | How can we transform chats into a reasonable, permanent reference | materials? | | Maybe it would be possible to build a slack-bot that could | identify which part of these threads are the most important, and | even move them to a more permanent storage. | | Or, slack channels could add functionality to allow users to vote | for which messages are most pertinent, or should be moved to | longer-term storage or a featured position for everyone. | | I think there is probably value in these rapid fire IM's, but I | feel the Mike's (the author's) pain. I skip over threads everyday | because reading them never feels worth it. | notacoward wrote: | This is one of the things that drove me nuts at my last company. | I had been remote all along, which meant I was left out of many | discussions. Chat was my lifeline, because it was the only thing | both I and others on the team used. When everyone went remote, we | had an opportunity to make a change for the better, but instead | _nothing at all changed_. Meetings were done via video chat | instead of in person, but they were just as un-findable and | ephemeral as before. If you mapped out the lines of communication | before and after, there 'd be no difference. In person vs. online | matters far less IMO than ephemeral and closed vs. open and | permanent. | | The irony is that the company happens to be the world's largest | platform for easily findable/joinable permanently archived | conversations. Go figure. | isaacremuant wrote: | Opinionated article that doesn't land in my experience. | | Slack search is awesome, allows links with previews, reminders, | easy channel creations, bookmarking, threading to allow sub | topics... | | Better than email for the quick back and forth, better than voice | that is harder to schedule and synchronic and doesn't keep | records. | | If it's really important, you should have a way to keep track | besides the "quick communication" but that doesn't mean slack | isn't a great tool by default. Just keep an eye on the data | deletion policies. | Communitivity wrote: | I disagree with this article. | | This is what was said about GMail when it first came out - you | need folders, without folders you can't keep organized, etc. | | Turns out indexing and mechanisms to make use of that indexing | (labels, advanced sorts, filters) work better than folders. | | Persistent chat that can be labelled, indexed, searched and | filtered is amazing for work related chats, or any chat that | becomes part of a long running context. | | We do this where I work, and it works well, mostly - as long as | people use the tags. | zug_zug wrote: | Exactly, I completely reject the premise of this article. In | the last hour I searched the "alerts" channel to see how many | times our database had high CPU in the last year. | | I'm not one to defend slack, but there's nothing inherently | temporary about slack. And searchability > manual | categorization. | k__ wrote: | _" as long as people use the tags"_ | | That's the crucial point here. | | UIs need to help users to find the appropriate tags, often | tagging is either included implicitly, which leads to | forgetting or clunky, which leads to aversion. | 1penny42cents wrote: | The sheer volume of information that Chat holds makes it hard | to search. The noise to signal ratio is higher than on channels | with lower throughout (e.g. documentation products). Chat | doesn't let you send one message and craft it over time, like a | mission statement, proposal, or architecture guide. It has a | fundamentally different character. | relaytheurgency wrote: | I definitely agree with this. The one thing that I hoped would | prove useful from these programs vs IRC was the idea of a | persistent, searchable, history. However my experience has been | not great. Searching history often just brings up unrelated | snippets of conversations I didn't have any interst in, in | channels I never chatted in. It's just more clutter. | [deleted] | williesleg wrote: | I thought it was about putting comments on a website that saves | them forever. | Footkerchief wrote: | Slack has fantastic search. It has good filtering, sorting, and | pagination, and has the right degree of fuzziness. | | I use it on a daily basis to discover the reasoning for things | that happened before my time. I've never known anyone else who | does this, and I've never understood why. | Minor49er wrote: | I would do this at my last job, which was very Slack-heavy. I | would even bring up any weird dev issues or bits of info that I | came across that sometimes only mattered to me at the time, but | it turned out to be helpful when I would search for those | things months (or even years) later. | | My current job has both Basecamp and Slack. Most of the work | discussion happens in Basecamp, which is fine. However, the | search is pretty awful, so it's hard to get a quick and | relevant response back when trying to find out more info about | a given setting, feature, piece of code, or whatever else. | There's a lot of extra digging involved with Basecamp's search | results. | throwaway-42808 wrote: | That's encouraging. I haven't had the same experience yet, but | I haven't worked for someone who pays for full search history. | paxys wrote: | Every Slack plan has full search history, so really you | haven't worked for someone who pays for Slack. Like, I get | that it is expensive, but it's weird to run your company on a | product trial. | throwaway-42808 wrote: | Yep :) | | It's a weird way to try to save money, imo. Down the line | it just leads to confusion and repeat work. | | They also underinvest in documentation, with the same | result. | the_arun wrote: | Well, Slack search experience could be done better. I prefer to | see search results and selected thread with search keyword in | the same view. It is annoying to keep going to every thread in | the results and going to search bar again if that is not I was | looking for. | bt1a wrote: | I second this, I am actually able to find tons of important | communications on Slack that happened years ago at my work. | Perhaps it is not well understood by many? I somewhat agree | with the author, but what is the alternative to Email or a Chat | Application? | Torn wrote: | A product that does threaded conversations. Yammer did this | pretty well, shame it never really took off for businesses | dpcx wrote: | I have struggled for years to find things that I know exist | within Slack. I specifically (as a test) set up my email to | forward all mail to a specific address in to Slack | (https://slack.com/slack-tips/send-email-to-slack) and found | more often than not that Slack could not find something when | searching for it. | | YMMV, of course. But my mileage was pretty terrible. | mongol wrote: | Can a chat platform be built on SMTP, and what would be the | implications of that? Has that been done? I think email has so | many things going for it, and I wonder to what extent it has been | rejected as a platform because it is too open. | cxr wrote: | Delta Chat | | https://delta.chat | jrockway wrote: | I have always thought that Slack is designed to make information | go away, and that's why people like it. Email never goes away | unless you archive the thread. If you have a bunch of things that | are going on, you open your inbox and realize just how behind you | are, every time you open it. Slack, conversely, scrolls up and | always looks the same. If you miss something, the world moved on | without your input, and you feel the same. | | The article is right that the problem is when the information | doesn't want to be deleted. Now you have to do extra work. | (Specific example; a long time ago, I figured out how to get | Github to notify me on Slack when a code review was assigned to | me. It is not easy to find in the UI and took me a while to set | up. I wrote down the instructions in Slack... and that helped | people that were reading it then, but it doesn't help me tell | someone how to do it that asks me today. Should have written a | runbook!) | | Remembering to persist information is always something you have | to do, and it's not specific to Slack. Your shell history is | useless to your coworkers. Your design discussions is useless to | someone that just joined the team today. | tshaddox wrote: | I'm confused. What are the differences between Slack and email? | Both are generally displayed on a relatively small list where | new messages eventually cause old messages to be hidden. Those | hidden messages are still accessible if you try, both with | similar processes (assuming you're using an email client with | text search like Gmail). | ketzo wrote: | From my experience, the mark of a well-run Slack is the ability | to find old, valuable information. You're right that it's not | always easy, but you can get a LOT further with 1) well-defined | channels 2) good use of pinning 3) good use of "saving" | messages for yourself. | | It helps that Slack's search is actually pretty good imo, and | usually quite fast. | | But yeah -- it can't be your only tool. If you don't have a | better system for long-form documentation, you're gonna lose a | lot of important stuff. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Well, a real paid slack instance doesn't go away. All the | public free slacks do.. The whole fact that Slack charges a lot | for the privilege of keeping history beyond a couple of months, | proves that it's worth a lot to many people. | ogre_codes wrote: | Yes, but as gmail has illustrated, that just shifts the | problem. Where before your problem was "It got deleted". Now | the problem is search pulls up too many things. | | Slack seems to be even worse because unlike email, you don't | really have subjects or thread beginnings, just continual | flow of chatter. | pcthrowaway wrote: | You can make threads in slack. The implementation is a bit | weird but (as of last time I used it circa 2018) it did the | job sufficiently. For features which required more focused | discussion from a sub-team over a longer period of time | there was a pseudo-room feature (I don't remember what it's | called though) | a-dub wrote: | amusingly, my understanding is that the original goal for slack | was to be an archive. | | slack originally stood for: searchable log of all communication | and knowledge | | but then in practice, i saw message retention locked down to 30 | days or less, which kinda defeated the point. | | other modern tools, like trello, also seemed to have gaps when | it came to logging/searching/archiving what happened. trello is | fantastic for organizing "what needs do", "who do", and "when | done"... but in my experience is pretty terrible for "what | happened" and "why". this is fine i think at smaller scales, | but once complexity starts to scale up, it can be a nightmare. | it's hard enough fighting issue hysteresis (reoccurring issues | and bugs that drag on for years) when there's good historical | views and explanations. | TeMPOraL wrote: | I don't know of any productivity tool that handles archiving | well. You can store done tasks in some way, but all the | context is lost. Over time, it's annoying even on a small - | individual - scale. | alach11 wrote: | I think Azure DevOps handles context pretty well. I can | look at old tasks and see associated commits, | conversations, and related work. | a-dub wrote: | yeah, the info is there and you can do the same with most | tools, but it often requires a lot to extract it. how | well organized is it? how hard is it to go from line of | code to complete discussion around when it was last | changed? | SulfurHexaFluri wrote: | Doesn't slack have full history if you pay for it? We use | Teams and I regularly find myself searching for stuff I | remember I was sent months ago. | derangedHorse wrote: | It does and today I just learned that there are some | companies that don't store all messages sent. Slack works | great at my company, I can search for things a year or more | back and even write messages to myself as a form of note | taking. | a-dub wrote: | it does, it was a conscious choice by management to turn | retention down to 30 days. it was weird. | FalconSensei wrote: | > I have always thought that Slack is designed to make | information go away, and that's why people like it. | | I think it's exactly the opposite?[0] | | People like it because, except for the free plan, you can find | anything that was ever discussed. | | [0]: https://slack.com/pricing | silicon2401 wrote: | This is exactly why at my org, slack is one of the de-facto | sources of truth. And it's awesome. I can often find the | solution to a specific, niche problem that someone else | discussed 4 years ago in a few seconds. Assuming your org | pays for whatever it is that allows full archival, it's a | great way to capture org-specific, tribal knowledge that you | won't find on google, but that nobody will take the time to | add to an internal wiki or something accessible beyond their | immediate team. | | If you want a chat nightmare, try microsoft teams. That | quickly became one of the most painful parts of one of my | previous workplaces. | jrockway wrote: | I have a paid Slack plan and while I can find specific | threads where I remember a lot of the details, I've never | found anything that I didn't personally participate in. | | Overall, I think search is a bad knowledge base management | tool. It proves the positive quickly (search for "foo", see | "here's how to use foo"), but never lets you prove the | absence of documentation (search for "foobar", nothing comes | up, search for "foo bar", nothing comes up, search for the | previous codename "barbaz", nothing comes up... did you | forget something, or is there just no | documentation/discussion? you'll never know. the result is | that people stop reading documentation.) | nitwit005 wrote: | The rule should be the same as meetings, which is that if | something important is decided, some document or wiki page should | get updated. | | It's never the case that everyone who might need to know is in a | meeting. You might hire someone next week. | esoterica wrote: | > Thinking one line at a time lowers the quality of the | discussion. Knee jerk rapid fire responses become the norm. | | I mean, this is also how talking in real life work. Chat is | supposed to be the closest written replication of a verbal | conversation. Rapid fire back and forth is how many discussions | are _supposed_ to happen. | everyone wrote: | We use Discord, and have 2 channels for each game we're workin' | on. 'Updates' and 'Chat' | | Announcements you want everyone to see go in 'Updates' So if you | finished a feature or are starting work on a feature, or have a | doc to show everyone... ... Everyone working on that project will | have notifications turned on for the projects 'Updates' channel | and will read everything on it. | | All general chat about the project and also responding to and | chatting about stuff in 'Updates' channel happens in chat | channel. | indymike wrote: | This argument has been going on for decades. Chat vs. threaded | discussion vs. email. The best one for me is where the people I | need to communicate are listening. The hard part is getting | everyone to listen in the same place. It doesn't matter how good | the UX is, if you need the CEO in the chat and she only does | email, then email it is. | wpietri wrote: | I find this somewhat incomprehensible. Why the bias for seeing | and archiving everything? The implicit model, which is right | there in his title, is "talk", which is not naturally archived. | | I've built products just fine using verbal communication nearly | exclusively. [1] We don't need to create some sort of panoptic | archive of every conversation ever had to get things done. If | people miss things, they miss things. We can catch each other up | on the parts that truly matter. | | Forgetting and repetition can be negative, but they can also be | highly positive. We don't have to carry with us the weight of | every word ever spoken about a project. | | [1] The main exception being index cards with a few words on | each. https://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/ | hbosch wrote: | > I find this somewhat incomprehensible. Why the bias for | seeing and archiving everything? The implicit model, which is | right there in his title, is "talk", which is not naturally | archived. | | Somewhat harder to do now that we are all WFH. | derangedHorse wrote: | This sounds like it may be a people problem rather than a | technology problem. If a problem is moving on without him on a | messaging platform I don't know why his teammates wouldn't do the | same on an email thread or a github issue. One-liners also don't | have to be the norm and I myself have gotten plenty of page long | responses when warranted. Channels and threads also work for me | when it comes to skimming, and Slack has a solid search feature | which manages to make locating things super easy | nwsm wrote: | Conveniently Teams has both chat and threads. | 1penny42cents wrote: | This article describes the problem with "hot" channels, like | Slack or Zoom. Their information throughout is so high that it's | hard to hold onto anything. That high throughout also makes them | valuable for quick syncs and personal conversation. We run into | trouble when we try to make it do more than it was built for. | | "Cold" channels (e.g. documents, tickets) are where important | information should go. A single piece of information can be | developed and solidified over time. Cold channels are easier to | search, easier to catch up on, and easier to onboard. | | The problem is not with any one channel, but that we expect one | channel to handle all types of information. | kbrwn wrote: | Chat will become the primary method of communication and will be | where most work gets done. Other systems will exist sure | eventually hackers will build tools for them to be interfaced | with via chat clients. This has been happening for many years. | Old people need to get over it and stop writing blog posts that | basically sound like anti-email rants from 1998. | skohan wrote: | Maybe I am one of those "old people" but I don't understand how | discord is better than more traditional forums or mailing lists | for technical discussions. With a mailing list, forum thread, | or GitHub issue, I can search and find something relevant to me | from years ago. By contrast, discord seems so ephemeral: I have | to hope I can be in the same place at the same time as the | person who has the information I need. And it's a closed | platform, so it's not searchable or indexable the same way as | content on the open web. And if discord closes their doors, or | changes their TOS in the wrong direction some day it might all | just be gone from one day to another. I would be happy to | understand why you think chat is a better tool for the job. | andybak wrote: | I can find useful discussions from 10 or 20 years ago because | they were crawled and archived. IRC, Usenet, web message boards, | mailing lists... | | Every single discussion happening on Slack or Discord will | probably be lost in a year or two and is impossible to find | unless you happen to be already aware of it. | | Developers should not use these platforms for anything with any | value. This is not the way to share information. | silicon2401 wrote: | While I enjoy slack at work (not without reservations, but | overall I like it), I definitely agree slack/discord are | terrible for communities. I can't imagine how much discussion | that even I participated in almost 15 years ago is still | quickly available, would now be lost to the ether of discord | and slack. | SulfurHexaFluri wrote: | This is desirable. I like that my discord conversation will | be gone in a few years. They serve little purpose being | archived anyway. Old IRC logs are a horrible thing to search | for help anyway. Much better just picking a forum/reddit post | on the same issue which will be better sorted. | julianlam wrote: | The key here is not the format of communication, since you've | listed email chains, chat, and forums in one list. | | It's the fact that slack and discord are essentially walled | gardens that do not allow for third-party indexing. Therein | lies the problem. | | If public discord servers were indexable you'd have no issue | with it. | andybak wrote: | I would still have some issues. I do find IRC archives much, | much less valuable than more structured sources. | | But I'm picking my battles at this point in time. And the | lack of indexing is the most critical flaw and one I think is | immensely damaging to technical communities on those | platforms. | kontxt wrote: | This is one reason I built https://kontxt.io for enterprise. It | instantly connects people to specific page-parts to have | localized conversations directly on the source of internal and | external websites and digital documents, so everything is where | you need it, when you need it, and anyone that joins later has | full context. | legerdemain wrote: | The problem with "trying it with my team for one sprint" is that | I now need to have a long conversation with legal. How will the | service provider handle the content (discussions, screenshots, | code snippets) that my team will upload? Do our current customer | contracts contain any clauses that complicate the use of external | discussion sites? In the unlikely event that the service offers | the option to host it locally -- who is going to deploy it, | configure it, set up security and authn/authz around it? | | The real answer is: just fucking use email. Why is email not one | of the options suggested in the TFA? It's universally available, | durable, allows long-form conversation and thoughtful | deliberation, doesn't tell you that "someone is typing," and | offers you the luxury of checking it at a set interval only a few | times per day. | | The way many organizations have collectively abandoned email in | favor of instant messaging is a travesty. | mumblemumble wrote: | There is really only one fundamental problem with email: its | mechanism for managing who takes part in the conversation is | all wrong for team communication. The symptoms of this problem | are myriad: reply-all storms, cya-by-cc, replying to a 5 month | old email rather than starting a new thread, fyi forwards, etc. | | Which isn't to say that all the advantages you list for email | are not true. They are. It's just that most people will shy | away from an otherwise-decent solution if it has terrible UX. | throw14082020 wrote: | There are many problems with email, not just one. Sure, we | have SPF, DKIM, DMARC and S/MIME, but they're not used by | most people. Especially the most important one, S/MIME (to | encrypt your messages/ keep them private). | fractionalhare wrote: | I'm surprised if that's actually true. I would guess that | most peoples' personal and work email accounts are managed | through providers like Google or Microsoft, which do | enforce all of those security protocols. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Their business products definitely don't enforce S/MIME | by default (which is prohibitively difficult with | external contacts anyway), and they _recommend_ to set up | the things like SPF and DKIM. They usually don 't host | your DNS so they can't do it for you (though they do tell | you exactly what to set and provide a checker to see if | you did it right!) | swiley wrote: | Most things I've seen require/enforce S/MIME. | franga2000 wrote: | All but the last are used by everyone as it is basically | impossible for mail to be accepted reliably from an email | server that doesn't have those set up correctly. | | As for S/MIME, certificates are a pain to deal with for | most people and all they really care about is transport- | level, not E2E encryption. | hn_asker wrote: | I hate it when I'm emailing someone with a deliberately long | response and by the time I send, the thread has already gone | on and I have to re-merge it. | thesuitonym wrote: | The obvious solution here is to not merge the whole thread | into your email, instead including only the parts of the | message that are directly relevant. | ryandrake wrote: | I'd like to see email clients offer a nice one-click | "rebase on top of latest" button. | tehjoker wrote: | Dang. I never thought of email like that, but I wonder if | email+git+UI would help for complex conversations. | swiley wrote: | Idk about the company you work at or projects you watch but | most people know how to use mailing lists. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | Some of these are solved by things like a corporate NNTP | server or mailing lists, right? | Karunamon wrote: | Some of them. In a previous job this was actually the | solution my department ended up using - one box running | Mailman, with various lists set up for things like special | groups, people who need to receive alerts on specialized | systems, stuff like that. | | The big win was the ability to rapidly subscribe and | unsubscribe from lists as you needed them. The actual | corporate email distro lists were handled by a dedicated IT | team who insisted on tickets for everything, so most people | just added filter rules to their inboxes instead of dealing | with that mess. | mumblemumble wrote: | Not really, because it still doesn't give people | sufficiently fine-grained control over demands on their | attention. | | I think the ideal is the approach you get with discussion | forums: Create a set of boards organized around topics, and | place named, threaded conversations within those boards. | People can join a board, in which case they will be able to | get a list of new conversations related to that board's | topic. They can then subscribe to just the conversations | that interest them, and unsubscribe from ones that cease to | be of interest. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | What's the difference between that sort of topics and | news groups or mailing lists (with archives)? If I want | information on something, subscribe; if I don't want | information, unsubscribe: I can always follow/search the | archive (or read digests) | fennecfoxen wrote: | The archive on NNTP is a first-class artifact that you | can interact with in your newsreader via NNTP. You can do | things like reply to old threads. | | The archive on a mailing list is a second-class artifact, | typically hosted via HTTP, and usually people don't care | about the quality of the archive's UX. | | The structural organization on NNTP is also a first-class | artifact that everyone can refer to. A mailing list will | go straight into everyone's inbox, with all their other | mail, until they filter it away. | pseudalopex wrote: | IMAP and Exchange support archives and subscriptions. | mumblemumble wrote: | It's a second level of organization/subscription so that | you can have more fine-grained control over how much you | get spammed. | | News groups and mailing lists don't scale super well, in | that, when you subscribe, you then get sent _everything_. | Maybe not terrible for the 5-10 emails a day from my kid | 's playgroup's email list, but absolutely awful for | trying to keep up with a team of 100 people. | twic wrote: | In a newsgroup, you don't get sent anything. You can go | to the group and see what's new. If there's a particular | thread you're not interested, tell your news client to | ignore it; if there's one you're particularly interested | in, tell your news client to watch it: | | https://superuser.com/questions/458136/thunderbird-watch- | or-... | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | But the solution is exactly the same: create a new | mailing list or newsgroup under the sort of circumstances | where you'd add a topic to a forum or a channel in a | Slack workspace. Open source projects, for example, will | have foo-announce, foo-user, foo-devel, etc. | | Or use digests, mail filters/folders and a convention for | tagging message subjects. | mumblemumble wrote: | So, that's the top level. The 2nd level would be more | analogous to individual email threads within those | groups. | | Once you get down to the individual conversation level, | the fine-grained management bits you talk about are not | good UX, they're band-aids for dealing with bad UX. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | Well, whether they're good or bad UX depends on | assumptions about whether the second-level categorization | is more meaningful organization-wide or on a user-by-user | basis. | pvorb wrote: | But isn't that how the typical chat works? Where's the | difference? At least that's similar to how the channels | in my company are organized. The only difference might be | that there's faster feedback in a chat and this leads to | shorter posts/messages. But I haven't really used any | forum software in the past decade, so I don't know if | they don't have similar notifications and unread status | icons on threads today. | dsterry wrote: | The problem with chat is the interruptive, thoughtless | nature of it. In a large organization, you want | durability that you won't get from chat. | | Internal Q&A, forums, and email all work because you can | have long-form conversations on them but an important | consideration is discoverability. If a new user wants to | find out why X is true for some service, they'd better be | able to do that without interrupting someone else. | u678u wrote: | Talk to your lawyer on this too. Our lawyer said emails with | the lawyer in the conversation will have client attorney | privilege, is not court admissible. I dont know about IM. | dctoedt wrote: | > _Our lawyer said emails with the lawyer in the conversation | will have client attorney privilege, is not court | admissible._ | | That's too-sweeping a statement [0]: | | 1. Privilege attaches only to communications in the course of | seeking legal advice. | | 2. Privilege is waived -- and thus the emails are | discoverable by adversaries and admissible in court -- if | people outside the decision-making group are in the | conversation. | | 3. Privilege doesn't attach if the lawyer is functioning as a | business executive or -advisor. | | 4. Privilege won't apply if the conversation is determined to | be part of a crime or fraud. | | All that said: If a lawyer is involved in the conversation, | then the company's litigation counsel will almost- | automatically withhold the emails from being produced to an | adversary and will list them on a "privilege log." That will | often set up an ancillary court fight over whether the emails | should be produced to the adversary. In that ancillary fight, | the judge might end up reviewing the emails "in camera," | i.e., without the adversary seeing them, to decide whether | the privilege applies -- and depending on the content of the | withheld emails, having the judge read the emails could do as | much damage to the company's case as anything. | | [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client- | priv... | PaulHoule wrote: | I worked at a B2B startup that had chronic problems w/ team | members sharing documents in way that our customers thought | were insecure. These were some of the biggest companies the | world. | | I asked our biz dev guy who had been trained as a lawyer what | to do and he told me to the same thing my accountant does with | my taxes: email an encrypted PDF as an attachment and share the | password by a separate channel. | grok22 wrote: | There are various services like WireDoc, ShareFile, etc, or | even Mozilla's deprecated Firefox Send that canonized this | (encrypt on one channel, share the password on a separate | channel). | withinboredom wrote: | So, you're worried about this | | > I now need to have a long conversation with legal. How will | the service provider handle the content (discussions, | screenshots, code snippets) that my team will upload? | | Yet you suggest using email where it basically goes (or can be | coerced to go) across the internet in plain-text where anyone | can read it? | dividedbyzero wrote: | For email that conversation probably has taken place already. | Also, lots of larger orgs have internal mail servers where | this isn't even remotely true. | StavrosK wrote: | Use Zulip. It solves all the problems that email has and also | enables a bunch of other things you never knew you needed, like | a sane model for browsing messages. | | It can even serve as real-time communication for #random and | other such work-adjacent channels. | ogre_codes wrote: | > just fucking use email. | | I get you. But also: | | - Email doesn't retain context very well. If I dig back through | my email I might have all of the emails in a thread, or maybe | not. | | - Likewise, I can't send someone a link to a previous emailed | conversation so it makes for poor documentation. I can forward | an individual email, but not the comment in context. | | - Email is not easy to index or post up for reference. You | can't link it from a wiki or other documentation for example. | | An internal mailing list with archiving would solve many of | these issues and might be the best option, but it's a slightly | different solution. | [deleted] | jshier wrote: | Basecamp does this well, especially version 2, which | integrated with email. With version 2 you could have topics | in Basecamp which you could post directly do or email and it | was searchable and linkable. It was even possible to post | messages which were optionally emailed to clients, with their | response becoming part of the thread history. Really the best | of both worlds. Unfortunately they removed the email feature | in Basecamp 3 (and my company upgraded) so we can't do that | anymore, but older projects retain their history. | ogre_codes wrote: | Yeah, basecamp is pretty good at this. It is a pretty solid | tool for building projects where having communications and | documentation is intermixed is important. | | I didn't realized they removed the email piece... seems | like a downgrade. Particularly for projects where you have | fairly casual participants. | StavrosK wrote: | I've commented this too much in this thread, but it's | important: Zulip solves all this, has other advantages _and_ | a fast and extremely usable interface. | swiley wrote: | This is why most replies include quotes. | | But yeah for groups you need a mailing list with an archive. | It's still better than most IM apps IMO. | emidln wrote: | Many organizations seem to use Outlook/Exchange and configure | Exchange to make it difficult to use other mail clients (not | enabling imap, not enabling caldav support so that a separate | calendar and email client need to be used unless you use | exchange, etc). Outlook is truly awful as a mail client and it | would make one want to use anything else. | Const-me wrote: | I've been using Outlook for 20 years or so, and I generally | like it. Lots of features, some of them are borderline | unique. For instance, I wonder which e-mail clients allow to | create complicated rules that are then running on the mail | server as opposed to that client? | | The necessary conditions are (1) one needs to learn it. Too | many features are making UX non-intuitive. (2) fast | connection to e-mail server (3) ms exchange on the server, | some features only work there. | welterde wrote: | That feature of course needs support server-side, but | Thunderbird does have a Sieve add-on (in case sieve is | enabled/available on the server). I don't use it myself, | since I prefer to edit the sieve filter file directly | instead of using a GUI for it, but the option is there. | Const-me wrote: | I prefer to right-click on e-mail and "create rule from | message" from context menu. Also, the feature doesn't | require any steps to configure, install or enable, it | just works out of the box. | welterde wrote: | Unlike the Outlook+Exchange combination Sieve is an | actual open standard (RFC 5228 & RFC 5804 & co) though | that can be implemented by all mail servers and mail | clients. Or is the Outlook+Exchange feature based on the | same? | | Looking at the sieve website it seems quite a few desktop | and web mail clients do have support for it either out of | the box or as an add-on. So I would say that having this | functionality is more on the "common" side than | "borderline unique". | Const-me wrote: | > Or is the Outlook+Exchange feature based on the same? | | Not sure but unlikely. It works in Exchange for 20 years | now, that RFC was written in 2008. | | > having this functionality is more on the "common" side | than "borderline unique". | | The complete UX makes it borderline unique. Available out | of the box, has a nice GUI, and is reliable in practice. | legerdemain wrote: | So you're saying you'd rather lose all the productivity | benefits of a solution that's not instant messaging than use | Outlook? Powerful stance! | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | Is it really that bad? | | I'm just a dumb machine operator that uses Outlook at work, | Fastmail for myself, and Gmail because I'm an idiot too, and | really can't tell the difference. | nobody9999 wrote: | >I'm just a dumb machine operator that uses Outlook at | work, Fastmail for myself, and Gmail because I'm an idiot | too, and really can't tell the difference. | | Install Thunderbird[0] and use it for a week. You'll be | able to tell the difference _very_ quickly. | | [0] https://www.thunderbird.net | jcrawfordor wrote: | I'm a Thunderbird user, but I don't really think that | there's a clear winner in that comparison. Outlook has | features that Thunderbird has been missing for over a | decade, like reliable send-in-background (and other | database operations in background unlike Thunderbird that | likes to interrupt you to ask permission) and a far more | mature calendar product. | indymike wrote: | Not to mention replies listed in threads. You have to | move sent messages to the inbox to get this to behave | correctly in TB. | nobody9999 wrote: | >I'm a Thunderbird user, but I don't really think that | there's a clear winner in that comparison. Outlook has | features that Thunderbird has been missing for over a | decade, like reliable send-in-background (and other | database operations in background unlike Thunderbird that | likes to interrupt you to ask permission) and a far more | mature calendar product. | | A fair point. As someone who has used both Outlook | (professionally) and Thunderbird (personally) for decades | (IIRC, the oldest message in my Thunderbird email store | is from 1996), calendaring in Thunderbird isn't as robust | as in Outlook and some of the other weaknesses you | mention are absolutely valid. | | However, I'd say that many of the advantages of Outlook | that you mention are more related to better integration | of Outlook into Exchange back ends than to the Outlook | client. | | If Exchange had better IMAP support and appropriate | plugins for Thunderbird, Thunderbird would be vastly | superior to Outlook in most respects. | | As it is, Thunderbird is already vastly superior to _any_ | web-based MUA[0], including OWA[1]. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_client | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_on_the_web | | Edit: Clarified Outlook/Exchange integration vs. Outlook | as client. | jcrawfordor wrote: | I tend to really harp on send-in-background because I | view it as a _core feature_ of an MUA, but as far as I | know it 's still hidden behind an about:config flag in | Thunderbird because it has an excessive number of known | bugs, and it's been this way for many years. Another | ongoing pain with Thunderbird is the inability to switch | between HTML and plaintext when composing a message. | Outlook lets you do this, in Thunderbird you have to copy | the message, discard it, start a new one in the right | mode and paste. | | On the other hand, yes, Outlook Web Access is hilariously | bad. It's hard to understand how Microsoft flubbed it so | bad considering that their consumer outlook.com has a | radically better webmail. Different teams, obviously, but | you'd think they would have shared notes. | | All in all, it feels a lot to me like Microsoft had a | really good MUA in 2003 and hasn't done much with it | since, while Mozilla had a not-quite-done-yet MUA in 2003 | and hasn't done much with it since. Both feel bolted | together out of spare parts but in a way that's | subjectively a bit different. | bluGill wrote: | Outlook takes to long to start up in the morning. If it | could start instantly I'd walk into the conference room on- | time, but instead I'm several minutes late. Now that I'm | working from home it needs to get the chat client started | instead, but the the end result is the same, if I'm not | running early I'll be late to important early morning | meetings. (my early morning meetings are with India, so | they will quickly assume I'm not joining at all and head to | their supper - timezones are such that the best time for | everyone is my breakfast and their supper) | | Outlook also has been chasing the flat look fad which is | against usability. Most of the others are too so it is hard | to fault them, but I still wish they would have the guts to | say this fad is wrong... | | Once they are all running and you are used to the ui quirks | they all work well enough. | wussboy wrote: | It's the worst. Unless you have to use any of the other | ones. | dumbfounder wrote: | Those emails are only available to the users participating in | them, and in some places are automatically deleted after a | certain amount of time. The point of TFA is knowledge capture, | and email isn't transparent enough for sharing knowledge. | legerdemain wrote: | Enter team aliases and topic-based distribution lists. | | Adding a distribution list to an email thread is almost | exactly like choosing a Slack channel to type into, except | you no longer have the mess of needing to share and re-share | messages and threads across channels. You can just add | multiple distribution lists. | | You can also subscribe and unsubscribe from distribution | lists and set up filters for them, which is basically like | joining and leaving Slack channels based on your interests, | except it gives you much more control over what you want to | read and when. | powersnail wrote: | This gives me an idea. What about setting up an archiving | script? | | After a archive-worthy discussion in email, you forward the | thread to "archivebot@my-company-domain.com". The script will | parse the email chain and generate a static web page hosted | on a local server. | bluGill wrote: | You don't want a bot to archive it. You want a human (or an | AI smarter than what exists today) to create a summary. | | Everything you have in your archives will be taken out | context, misinterpreted, used against you in court. | Alex3917 wrote: | > After a archive-worthy discussion in email, you forward | the thread to "archivebot@my-company-domain.com". The | script will parse the email chain and generate a static web | page hosted on a local server. | | Unfortunately there isn't any such thing as "forwarding an | email thread", at least not currently. If you hit the | forward button in your email client it will only forward | the last email in the thread, which sometimes contains the | entire thread as quoted reply text, but only in situations | where each person has only replied to the most recent email | in the thread. Some email clients also truncated the quoted | reply text after a certain number of messages, and it's not | generally parsable. | | Our email archival product uses a G Suite add-on for this | reason, which provides the same benefits as OAuth but works | on a thread-by-thread basis. I think Outlook extensions | work the same way, but I'm not 100% sure on that. | | Actually technically Gmail does have a little known | "forward thread" button that's hidden in one of the | dropdowns, but it doesn't work that well. (Which you'll see | if you try it on any longer thread.) | pwdisswordfish0 wrote: | > Unfortunately there isn't any such thing as "forwarding | an email thread" | | Mailing lists have for years offered mailing list | archives that you can read directly in your client, | exactly as if the messages had been hitting your inbox | from the beginning. The bigger problem with email is that | messages are not as easily _addressable_ , unlike links | on the Web. | Alex3917 wrote: | > The bigger problem with email is that messages are not | as easily addressable, unlike links on the Web. | | You can format email messages for display on the web and | generate permalinks for each message. E.g. look at what | we do for https://www.prettyfwd.com. I haven't yet added | a JS snippet to autoscroll to a specific message if you | pass it in the UUID for that message as a URL parameter, | but it's been on my TODO list for a while. | | Example thread, where each message is formatted for the | web and has a UUID: | https://www.prettyfwd.com/t/5XVkc401RiCTO9hwsSRziQ | | The other problem with most mailing list archives is that | they look terrible and have poor readability, poor SEO, | and generally terrible lighthouse scores. Whereas I think | we score perfect 100s across the board, albeit only 99 on | mobile perf because we don't prerender. | Alex3917 wrote: | We made FWD:Everyone (https://www.fwdeveryone.com) for this | exact problem. It works via a Gmail add-on, so you can upload | an email thread after it's over without having to grant OAuth | access to your inbox. It makes these threads taggable and | searchable within your company, and formats them to make them | look beautiful. | | The advantage over just copying everything to a mailing list | is that most conversations aren't worth archiving, so having | conversations be opt-in after the fact keeps the signal-to- | noise ratio much higher than it would otherwise be. | | We're still a very small platform, but since we're completely | bootstrapped and grew 34x year-over-year in the past year, | we're not going anywhere. :-) | acjohnson55 wrote: | Hi Alex! Glad FWD:Everyone is still going strong. I'm still | waiting for it to become the dominant way of presenting | email correspondence in media, like embedded tweets :) | NationalPark wrote: | Email isn't searchable by people who weren't on the threads. In | an org that uses IM well (they exist!) the chat system actually | becomes sort of like a wiki, except a lot more helpful. | [deleted] | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Except you can only find stuff by spelunking with search, | hoping you hit on the right set of keywords and then | scrolling through a jumbled mess of hits. Wikis are organized | and have navigation. Also being at a company that uses email | _and_ Slack, I will say it is very very rare that anyone | actually uses Slack to search for conversations they weren 't | in. Email has other weaknesses of course but in general I | agree with the point that Slack is actually worse in many use | cases. | swiley wrote: | >the chat system actually becomes sort of like a wiki | | That sounds horrible and very fragile. | harikb wrote: | One cannot search channels one is not part of. Don't forget | channels. Not everything happens on #general and #random. | | Also, even if I am part of the channel, there is no way I can | search and locate what I want without knowing the right | keyword to search for. Sure, the information is all there, | but that only ads to the frustration. Search interfaces in | Slack & all are very limited / too broad. | gregmac wrote: | If someone told me "that is documented in the chat channel, | just search", my response would be "ok. So it's not | documented." | | Even with the best organization (old content deleted), I | don't want to wade through the conversations about it or all | the other noise. Chat is temporal, the discussion about | something like "should x be updated" is immediately | irrelevant after the decision is made. | NationalPark wrote: | That's just not true, Slack in particular is quite | searchable. Anyway, weren't we talking about email, which | is even _less_ searchable? | bluGill wrote: | Your point is valid, but not exactly correct. I don't want | to know just what was decided, but why. Often I will come | back to "should x be updated" again and again. Knowing the | factors in the last decision is very important. More than | once I've pushed to update x and had someone say "we can't | for good reasons that I forget". Often I've spent weeks | redoing the discussion before someone remembers/discovers | why we can't do the update and we all go "whoa, I'm glad we | didn't do that". Other times we discover/remember why we | couldn't update and they are for reasons that no longer | apply and so we do the update. Still other times we never | discover any reason why we shouldn't update. Last sometimes | we discover why we shouldn't have updated after it is too | late and we have a mess to undo while backing out the | update. | | The important part is we know why a decision was made. Chat | logs are not a good archive because there is too much to | sort thought that isn't relevant. Better than nothing, but | what is really needed is an effort to document why in a | place the right people will find it when they need to know. | gregmac wrote: | While I fully agree about the need to record reasoning, | my approach is to summarize and put it in either wiki or | a ticket. Future me doesn't want to read a long chat or | email thread (whether it was one I was involved with or | not), and I assume no one else does either. | kmano8 wrote: | Eh, for the golden path, sure (say, having a service | documented). | | Slack search for <insert error name here> is high-value in | historical context that's tough to replicate elsewhere. All | at once, you learn if anyone's ever asked about the error | before, and if so, see the conversation on resolution. | jayd16 wrote: | And email solves that? Or you are suggesting both chat and | email do not solve the issue? | gregmac wrote: | Yes, I'm saying neither chat nor email solve this issue. | | Email is far worse, in fact, because: | | * Everyone has a unique view | | * Unless there are lots of cc-everyone style emails, you | might not even have anything to find. (And cc-everyone | sucks for 100 other reasons.) | | * You can't find anything predating the start of your | employment | | The biggest issue with searching both chat and email is | the absence of a result doesn't help: it's possible it | was a private chat, or an email chain that you weren't a | part of, but there's no way to tell. | | (Side note: A very locked-down wiki isn't any better, but | that's a conscious decision rather than default.) | pseudalopex wrote: | Mailing lists exist. | Footkerchief wrote: | Mailing lists (aka Google Groups if you're on GSuite) allow | retroactive access. | | That said, none of my employers have ever made effective use | of this. I don't think open communication is an instinct that | most people have. | DoofusOfDeath wrote: | > The real answer is: just fucking use email. | | I know of at least one large company that forcibly deletes | emails older than N months, as part of their legal retention | policy. (I'm assuming it means _non-retention_ to limit | exposure to lawsuits.) | | That would be problematic for persistent documentation. | munchbunny wrote: | That sounds like a pathological case. How many companies | actually do that? | Spooky23 wrote: | Usually that varies by legal department. | | Attorneys who sue or investigate people for a living want | everything forever, and those who get sued want to delete | email before it arrives. | | Email is a great way to get in trouble, as people tend to | say dumb things, even about things that they have nothing | to do with! | res0nat0r wrote: | Most Fortune 500 companies have a document retention policy | that every employee needs to read the generic training | video/documents on when getting hired and agree to. | | This sets a general policy of deleting documents/emails/etc | after $X days. This is really a CYA policy to purge old | conversations if a big lawsuit comes down asking for | document retention in relation to some scandal, and if its | older than $X days you're covered since your standard legal | process was followed. | eecks wrote: | What is CYA in CYA policy? | grzm wrote: | cover your ass. | sumtechguy wrote: | Also depending on industry you may by law need to delete | things. | oasisbob wrote: | Many, at least in the US. It's not just companies, | government agencies also have similar needs due to sunshine | and open-access laws. | | The alternative to having a document retention policy is to | just have employees delete things in an arbitrary manner. | It's not just CYA for leaving inconvenient doc lying | around, it's also to ensure the proper retention in the | event of a preservation order or public records request. | | Some companies go way further than others. One place I | worked included "notes of a personal nature (eg, birthday | cards)" in the retention policy and let us keep them for a | week or two before destruction. | legerdemain wrote: | I'm willing to bet money that for every company that deletes | emails older than some age also deletes Slack messages, and | deletes then _sooner_. | | I speak as someone who worked for a company where email got | archived and then deleted after 6 months, and currently works | at a company where everyone only uses Slack, and Slack is | purged after 30 days. | flerchin wrote: | Our email has a 90 day retention window, and Slack is | permanent. We're the largest in our industry. | legerdemain wrote: | Cool! Where should I send bet money? | flerchin wrote: | Mozilla or EFF, your choice. :-D | legerdemain wrote: | Excellent, $25 sent to EFF! | grok22 wrote: | Isn't that just a company policy? At some-point, the | lawyers will get clued-in and require that even on Slack | and other company-wide chat there be a limited retention | window! | [deleted] | astrobe_ wrote: | If they do store persistent documentation in emails, the | problem lies somewhere between the chair and the keyboard. | | Actually, forced deletion - if users are aware of it of | course - is likely to sanitize everyone's practice. Email | ain't a backup tool. | | That's symptomatic of people doing the most silly things and | then blame the failures on their tools. | grumple wrote: | Is this the part where we pretend your organization doesn't | already use something like a ticketing service, wiki, etc? I | find it hard to believe you don't have any sort of tool to post | information already. If it's true, run. | tabbott wrote: | Slack and all its clones are based on the chat room model, | which structurally has the problem described in this article | (and many others for productivity, such as wasting attention). | Fundamentally, the chatroom model pioneered by IRC is poor for | asynchronous communication because you can't sustain temporally | overlapping conversations in a channel. | | However, you can't "just use email" -- Email's threading model | is great for asynchronous work, but it is poor for synchronous | communication and also doesn't support modern features that | make it easier to communicate ideas efficiently (shared | history, markdown formatting, image previews, emoji reactions, | etc.). It's essential to be able to have (semi)synchronous | written conversations with people you're working with, | especially if you don't want to spend your days burning out on | video calls. | | This is why we created Zulip -- it's designed as a real-time | communication tool with email's threading model and all the | nice features of modern chat apps that email lacks. And the | reading user experience is actually a lot better than email, | because Zulip provides is designed with the goal of saving time | when prioritizing, skimming, reading, and replying to | conversations. It's also 100% open source software (not open | core!). | dsr_ wrote: | We've been using self-hosted Zulip for about 18 months now, | and it's exactly what our company needs. | | I have been recommending it right and left to people who | don't need federation in their chat system. If there was a | clear gateway to federation -- enabling a Matrix room as a | Zulip Stream, for instance -- I would enthusiastically | recommend it for everyone. | StavrosK wrote: | Same here. If you like email, Zulip is what you need. | zxexz wrote: | Zulip really hits the sweet spot for a communication tool. | Especially with large amounts of users communicating across | many different threads. The FHIR community "chatroom"[0] is a | Zulip server and is indispensable for communication and | knowledge building across thousands of users. | | [0] https://chat.fhir.org/# | Noumenon72 wrote: | I signed up for that to see what Zulip is like, but there | are only 19 messages visible if you do that, so I shouldn't | have bothered. It seems nice, I guess. | thesuitonym wrote: | I get that you're just trying to get your software out there, | but your modern features that email doesn't support are just | wrong. | | >shared history Not if you have a mailing list, and then | going off the record is as easy as removing the mailing list | from the CC field. | | >markdown formatting This is an implementation failure, not | really a fundamental problem with email. There is no reason | that email clients don't support markdown, except that nobody | has ever wanted it. There was someone who made a utility to | switch markdown to regular MIME email, but just as a proof of | concept. It works. | | >Image previews I assume what you mean by this is an inline | thumbnail that expands when you click on it? Again, there's | nothing about email that prevents it, it's just the way email | clients are. That could be fixed | | >emoji reactions Okay, that's fair, there's no way to do this | in email, short of sending a single emoji back. On the other | hand, I think everyone would agree that this is more of a | nice to have feature, than a necessary one, and one that | really only makes sense in the world of quick, back and forth | chat programs. | | [1] https://begriffs.com/posts/2020-07-16-generating-mime- | email.... | baxtr wrote: | I just love well thought out emails. They can provide a lot | clarity and be the basis for great discussions. | jamespitts wrote: | I can't agree with this essay more. | | In the early days of the Ethereum community a lot of open | coordination was done on reddit and a threaded forum hosted on | Vanilla Forums. Initially for privacy and convenience, Skype, | gitter, Discord, and Telegram began to take hold, and later | became the primary place for open, public discussions and some | decision-making as well. | | Threaded forums were still used but not central. It was a | difficult era (but a lot of work still moved forward)! There | emerged a kind of opacity due to ability to put attention on | real-time threads, and IMO sometimes key voices were missing | because they could not weigh in effectively. | | What changed the dynamic was the introduction of Discourse for | the critical https://ethresear.ch discussions (set up by Virgil | Griffith), and later https://ethereum-magicians.org (something I | worked on). I was pushing for threaded at the time because of | experiences I had here on Hacker News, reddit, and Slashdot. The | person I collaborated with, Greg Colvin, wanted discussions like | the threaded emails he was used to from the IETF and c++ | communities. | | We each knew from long experiences dealing with coordinating on | tech issue remotely that the quality of the message is the | medium. | | From those successful experiments / re-introductions, many teams | then began to adopt and host Discourse instances. Later, DeFi | picked it up for their governance / coordination discussions. Of | course, real-time never went away, with more gravitating toward | Telegram and Discord. But tracing the emerging thinking, hashing | out differences on what to do, and re-activating stale | discussions improved a lot. | | Threaded discussions are a core part of the community and work | again. | zionic wrote: | Thanks for all the work you've done for ETH! It has enriched my | life greatly, and I am so excited to see where things go post- | EIP1559 and 2.0! | woah wrote: | How does this differ from spoken conversation? | ISL wrote: | There is never any expectation that spoken conversation might | be archived/searchable/linkable-to-others. | lazide wrote: | Additionally in many locations (California), if that | conversation is plausibly private (in person, in a hallway | that isn't super busy or not in a cafe), it's illegal (albeit | not perfectly) for it to be anything but ephemeral. | | People can of course reproduce what they think you said in | another form, but that is always open for debate and | challengeable. For better or worse. | ajuc wrote: | The funny thing is - it's easier to search and look at context in | discord than in outlook or on wiki. | jadell wrote: | Alternatively, in a tool that allows multiple channels, create a | channel for the specific issue and invite the relevant people | into it. | | The problem in the essay isn't chat rooms, it's having ONE chat | room for all discussions. Branch off into another chat/channel | and title that channel for the specific issue being discussed. | lxe wrote: | Slack has a search function that works pretty darn well. | Conversations or context never get really lost. I wish we used it | more. | biztos wrote: | It's probably an unpopular opinion, but the best online technical | discussions I've ever seen in a company were done in Bugzilla. | | Every bug or feature request was a ticket. Tickets sometimes had | quite long discussions. | | The advantages were: | | * Permanent, so you thought about what you wrote. | | * Public, same effect. | | * Sequential, so it was very rare for people to reply over each | other. | | * Goal-oriented, you wanted to move towards resolution, which was | then archived forever. | | * Opt-in for following, so you had some control over your | attention. | | * Available, so you could search and see old attachments etc etc. | | * Safe, Local, easily self-hosted and backed up. | | * Customizable, e.g. easy linking to the repo even if you change | repos. | | The more things moved to various forms of the all-consuming | Jirapoly, the attention sink of Slack, the anarchy of mail+chat, | the less useful and (importantly) the less _productive_ these | conversations became. | u678u wrote: | Nice I haven't seem bugzilla for a while now, it looks good | maybe we can use to replace Jira. | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/home | kogir wrote: | Or, discuss in chat but make sure to end with a summary email | detailing the relevant decisions. Maybe include a link to the | chat so you can find it in the future. | syntheticnature wrote: | Funny thing, I've worked places where emails were deleted after | 30 days but Slack was forever. | LinuxBender wrote: | Your admin can set retention per channel or per organization. | MichaelApproved wrote: | How often does that actually happen? | [deleted] | blakeburch wrote: | When we were first growing our team out remotely, we really tried | to emphasize this style of thinking. All decisions and larger | discussions would need to be written down so the conversation | could be easily referenced for long-term context - we chose | Threads for this purpose. Any quick questions or one-off | communication could live in Slack. Any documentation needed to | live in Notion. | | Over time, our usage of Threads quickly decreased. If decisions | needed to be made, we had a meeting to cover it. Meetings always | had a few days notice with a written agenda and problem context | so that everyone could think through their ideas beforehand. The | end of a meeting usually resulted in a decision, which would then | get documented in Notion for posterity. The documented decisions | and reasoning would be circulated for approval by everyone that | was a part of that meeting to verify that nothing of importance | was missed. Once everyone approved, the decision was locked in. | | As our process developed, we found that the need for written | back-and-forth on decisions was less necessary. Instead, when we | identified that an issue needed to be solved, we identified the | key components of the problem, gave everyone some thinking time, | and knocked it out over the course of a call. We rarely need to | revisit the decisions since we write out the reasoning | afterwards. | | I still love the concept of having a tool specifically for | asynchronous discussion. However, I think these tools assume that | the conversation is the important part when in reality, the only | part that matters is the decision and the reasoning. If you can | get your team to document those, you'll be just fine. | [deleted] | keiferski wrote: | _Despite the "asychronous" claim, you have to keep a steady eye | on it and reply in realtime or the conversation will move on | without you. Anyone who takes the time to ponder and respond | thoughtfully with context and explanation will find that they're | too late._ | | I like the idea of a time-limited channel. You can only reply to | it during the meeting, and up to 15 minutes after. Theoretically | it would force everyone to communicate succinctly and not drag | meetings on indefinitely over the course of a day. | | Alternatively, have a channel that only allows one message per | hour. Call it #deep-thought. You'll really need to think about | what to say before you write it down. | j4yav wrote: | I'm building a collaborative, timeboxed collaboration tool | called AsyncGo at https://asyncgo.com. We are pre-launch but | have a prototype, and if anyone here would like a demo or has | any questions I'd be happy to answer. | | It's meant to replace chat and meetings with something designed | to be connected with at your convenience, and then publishes | the decisions and how they were reached to wherever your source | of truth is (or we can act as your source of truth). | eli wrote: | There's a Slack plugin for time-limited channels from Postlight | https://dashforslack.com/ | Karawebnetwork wrote: | "Snapchat"-like, in the workplace. | ve55 wrote: | I have noticed a similiar issue when I was searching for | technical support with some applications, and eventually I had to | make a Discord account, join a given server on it, and then | search its backlog to find my answer. | | The server was 'public' in that anyone could join it, but it will | not be indexed by search engines, so I can't imagine how many | other people were unable to find the solutions to their problems | because they were spoken in a chat room and never posted on the | 'public' Internet. Given the scale at which services like this | operate (soon to be billions of users), this is a pretty big | problem. | jayd16 wrote: | I think an interesting difference between chat clients like Slack | and email is this. | | With email every user must organize a single firehose of an | inbox. Chat channels area already a default compartmentalization | but beyond that, chat services default to shared organizational | structures like channels and threads. | | In email each user must manage the conversations themselves | through labels or what have you. In successful chat systems, you | can passively benefit from the organization of others. Mailing | lists help but aren't enough in their current, aging incarnation. | | It might be possible to disrupt the email space by recognizing | and adopting these UX differences. | Karawebnetwork wrote: | I don't know, it is quite easy to search a well indexed chat for | keywords in order to find important information. | x86_64Ubuntu wrote: | Sounds like people are trying to asymptotically approach email | functionality without actually using email. I do agree that | chat stuff has a place, but it seems like the new functionality | is just being copy-and-pasted from current email functionality. | happytoexplain wrote: | Usually - but the cases where this is both well implemented and | stores infinite history, or even very long history, is | vanishingly rare. | tspike wrote: | Yeah, I think the real solution here is: let's make chat | permanently archived and searchable. I find it more useful | searching through Slack for old conversations around a topic | than searching Confluence for the same. | AndrewUnmuted wrote: | But aren't these both pretty terrible tools or storing | information? | | Slack is an attempt at legitimizing and organizing stream-of- | consciousness. It has short feedback loops and therefore | cannot communicate deep research, novel concepts, nor well- | cited evidence. | | This is the wrong way to bring the tools of the consumer to | the enterprise. Nobody asked for this chat tool - Slack is | something sold to somebody who doesn't want to worry about | something, not somebody who wants to do something well with | low attrition. | have_faith wrote: | I think part of the problem is not all conversations are | obviously 'short and shallow' or 'long and broad'. What starts | out casual might unearth something that needs going into deeper, | and going in deep on something might not have results worth | documenting yet. | | To me this points out a gap in our software for knowledge | archival. The closest concept Slack has is "pinning" a message to | a channel, which has very limited use for this. Really what you | want is to be able to have a conversation with someone in any | manner (casual or formal meeting) and be able to easily extract | the conclusions and decisions made into a different location, | ideally through an easily discoverable UI in the software already | being used. | | In an ideal world my chat software has knowledge of the projects | I'm working on (through some protocol to something else that acts | as a source of truth) and I can select a message/file upload in | chat and tell it to archive it against a project. It can easily | fill in the details for me about who made this decision and when. | Ability to effortlessly organise information arising from a | connversation should a priority I think, this might remove the | need for having seperate software depending on how "deep" you | think a conversation is going to be. | fwip wrote: | I know that AI is a pile of buzzwords, but.... is this | something we could train AI to do reasonably well? A flow like | "click button and highlight conversation start/end" and it | picks out the relevant messages and tries to generate a set of | takeaways? (and allows user to edit them before saving). | have_faith wrote: | AI (or some primitive concept of...) could be useful in some | aspect, perhaps for sugggesting tags or categories the | information looks like it could belong to. Actually | extracting the "facts and takeaways" sounds very hard but | then I'm not a linguist so maybe there are methods. | ajsharp wrote: | There's a great rule of thumb for workplace communication mediums | I saw long ago. It was something like this: | | - Email: Not urgent. Expected response: ~1 day. - Chat: Somewhat | urgent. Expected response: < 1 hour. - Text: Shit is on fire. | Expected response: Immediate. | | Building on the points OP makes re the problems thinking one line | at a time in chat, in this little mental model there's a whole | lot of daylight between email and chat. And there's lots of | problems with email that make it not a great communication medium | for semi-urgent things. | | My sense is that we need a better primitive inside chat platforms | to differentiate between "this is important and we need to have | this discussion now" and something closer to email-ish pace. | pottertheotter wrote: | That's an interesting perspective. To me, if it's urgent, | better be a phone call. I definitely don't see a text as | urgent. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I have to agree with this. When we started using MS Teams, it | worked really well to replace person to person chats, email etc.. | | But since it's become commonplace, it's become a crapbucket of | stuff that I can't find anything back in. I have too many | channels, too many teams (and you can't opt in to channels like | you can on Slack, you have to join them all). And the search | function is even worse than Outlook's. It's all just too | unstructured. Even if I search for someone's name plus a keyword | I know it's there it can't find it back for me. | | Such an app (not just Teams) is just not the right tool for | everything related to communication, even though Microsoft is | pushing it as exactly that. | | A forum though is too '2000' for me. I would see more in a | managed wiki, provided people can stomach working in a structured | way. Enforcing that will be an issue but it will result in a | beautiful oracle of information. I've seen it happen before (and | I've seen it fail many more times, sadly). | [deleted] | mullingitover wrote: | Slack isn't a bunch of chat rooms, it's a database _disguised as | a bunch of chat rooms_. I 've never had a problem pulling up some | random conversation from three years ago as long as I remember | the general topic. | | In that regard it's no different than using email, everything is | indexed and you're just searching a different database. | omosubi wrote: | use JIRA as an internal stackoverflow :D | LinuxBender wrote: | In fact Atlassian have a module for this that plugs into | Confluence which looks and feels a lot like SO. Trying to find | the module name. It might just be called "Questions". I think | this is the one we use [1] | | [1] - https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1217080/questions- | ans... | omosubi wrote: | that'll only work if the module name also makes confluence | search usable | LinuxBender wrote: | Yes, their search leaves a lot of room for improvement. I | am only suggesting it for the folks that are already using | it. | grahamjpark wrote: | If you're into Cal Newport, he's got a new book coming out that | seems related: | | https://bookshop.org/books/a-world-without-email-reimagining... | u678u wrote: | Cal Newport has a new book coming out every few weeks. Usually | its 90% of the last one with a different target audience. :) | [deleted] | andrenotgiant wrote: | It sounds like the author was mostly thinking about INTERNAL | discussion, but I think the real tragedy is in using chat like | Slack for your public customer community forum. | | Think of all the knowledge and employee-time locked away in the | scrollback of a chat based community forum. | | Better to have chat for informal community discussion, but when | someone asks a question that others in your community might find | useful in the future, politely direct them to post it in a more | permanent (read: accessible via google search) medium. | Sodman wrote: | My experience so far with companies that operate in this | manner, has been something like: | | 1) Community member asks question. | | 2A) Answer is already in documentation, which can be easily | linked to. | | Or | | 2B) Can be answered in-line, with an action item to add | clarification/more details to the docs. | | This feels like a pretty scalable solution for the most part. | If there are still recurring questions you might want to look | at the discoverability/layout of your docs, but usually I've | found that other community members start linking each other to | docs if the same question comes up again and again. | the_arun wrote: | I agree with the concern author is expressing. Usually, we do not | start conversations leading to a decision/important, but it | evolves into useful discussion. Onus is on us to move that | convo/thread to GitHub issue & socialize it there. May be that is | what author is hinting. | getitstraight wrote: | Better yet, stop using shitware like Slack, Matrix, etc, where | all the data is kept locked behind closed doors ("in the cloud") | and you can only access it through a 500 MB bloated shitware app | that drags your 8 core workstation to a crawl. | | IRC sucks, but it sure beats the alternative. AIM or other | Pidgin-based alternatives wouldn't be too bad either, if you had | your own private server with everything logged. | | _Edit, because I 'm a really shitty commentator, apparently, who | isn't allowed to post any more today:_ | | No, _your_ comment was completely tangential to the content of | _my_ post. | | "Live chat" as it's currently implemented and widely used, a la | IRC, Slack, etc, certainly has its downfalls, much of which can | be mitigated however by logging to disk, with a quality search | engine to index it. | | Look at all the "alternatives" this guy is suggesting. It's | basically "switch to a forum instead of chat." Most of the | suggestions are proprietary, closed junk. Not exactly a smart | formula for long data retention. | | He lists all these advantages of forums, and yet seems to have | overlooked the advantage of chat, which is precisely that it | gives a direct connection to someone, rather than having to wait | a day or a week for a response. | | Better advice would be to use IRC (or other locallly hosted, open | source alternative) for your team, but use discipline in your | conversations so that you don't bloat the chat log with a bunch | of chatter that makes searching it harder. Then perhaps designate | certain persons to organize and summarize the proceedings so they | are more easily referenced. | | There certainly can be better improvements in chat, but "just | switch to a forum" isn't it. | galkk wrote: | It is like saying "drop windows/mac and use arch linux" | whalesalad wrote: | this is completely tangential to the content of the post | svnpenn wrote: | There's no such thing as "completely tangential". Something | is either tangential, or it's not. | | Perhaps you should read a dictionary before your next attempt | at "forum police". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-12 23:00 UTC)