3 ms·

> Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. Maybe this is a failing on my part, but I'm having a hard time understanding h

> Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. Maybe this is a failing on my part, but I'm having a hard time understanding how these: > × "Hello, are you around?" > × "hi sophie - quick question." > × "You got a sec?" (specifically the first and last of these) aren't a form of urgent scheduling. At the very least, the last one is unambiguously asking if there's immediate availability, which generally implies urgency of some form.

airstrike 6y ago
The difference is those examples don't allow the listener to decide how urgent the matter is. If my boss tells me something is urgent, by definition it is. If anyone tells me it's an emergency, I drop what I'm doing and help—but it better be a real emergency. Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency.
- eganist 6y ago
  > Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency. That's fine, and that's for you to decide. But Mike from Accounting may have a reason to withhold the details for a different channel or to mitigate against other potential risks. It's up to you to decide with the information you have whether it meets your standard of urgency.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Mike doesn't need to share the details. He just needs to tell me what it's about and ask when I'm free. I'll be happy to carve out time in my schedule and offer up, say, 30 minutes at 2pm. If he needs to talk sooner than that, he can make a counter proposal and say "this is really urgent, can you talk sooner?" and I will weigh it accordingly Overcommunicating is better than undercommunicating.
    - eganist 6y ago
      > Mike doesn't need to share the details. He just needs to tell me what it's about and ask when I'm free. I'll be happy to carve out time in my schedule and offer up, say, 30 minutes at 2pm. If he needs to talk sooner than that, he can make a counter proposal and say "this is really urgent, can you talk sooner?" and I will weigh it accordingly I think this thread has reached its apex. Not every message's contents ("what it's about") can be conveyed asynchronously, but I'm failing to communicate this, so I think I'll bow out. Thanks for working with me on this.
  - djur 6y ago
    I'm kind of surprised about how much pushback you're getting on this. If I was working in person, someone coming up to me and asking "do you have a sec?" would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even if I worked in a private office, someone knocking on the door would deserve enough attention to explain their situation. I don't think I've ever worked at a place where I could get away with telling my colleagues "don't come talk to me unless we have an appointment". Being available to help is part of the job.
    - eganist 6y ago
      People like to maintain control over their own time and attention; I totally get it. But you're right, I'm also surprised at the extremes to which people are taking it, going so far as to assume that ephemerality and confidentiality mean the conversation is somehow immoral or illegal. That's the kind of argument law enforcement makes against the use of encryption. It's an interesting double standard on HN. I work infosec. My frame of reference is different from many here. But there are many times where I: • want to ensure a synchronous conversation about an urgent matter, and • don't want someone forwarding a "quick blurb" ("Hey, eganist here. Got an urgent moment to talk about something unusual we're seeing with web service X?") and spreading workplace gossip about a security anomaly when the anomaly itself is still being investigated to determine whether it's an incident.

airstrike 6y ago

The difference is those examples don't allow the listener to decide how urgent the matter is. If my boss tells me something is urgent, by definition it is. If anyone tells me it's an emergency, I drop what I'm doing and help—but it better be a real emergency. Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency.

eganist 6y ago
> Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency. That's fine, and that's for you to decide. But Mike from Accounting may have a reason to withhold the details for a different channel or to mitigate against other potential risks. It's up to you to decide with the information you have whether it meets your standard of urgency.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Mike doesn't need to share the details. He just needs to tell me what it's about and ask when I'm free. I'll be happy to carve out time in my schedule and offer up, say, 30 minutes at 2pm. If he needs to talk sooner than that, he can make a counter proposal and say "this is really urgent, can you talk sooner?" and I will weigh it accordingly Overcommunicating is better than undercommunicating.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > Mike doesn't need to share the details. He just needs to tell me what it's about and ask when I'm free. I'll be happy to carve out time in my schedule and offer up, say, 30 minutes at 2pm. If he needs to talk sooner than that, he can make a counter proposal and say "this is really urgent, can you talk sooner?" and I will weigh it accordingly I think this thread has reached its apex. Not every message's contents ("what it's about") can be conveyed asynchronously, but I'm failing to communicate this, so I think I'll bow out. Thanks for working with me on this.
- djur 6y ago
  I'm kind of surprised about how much pushback you're getting on this. If I was working in person, someone coming up to me and asking "do you have a sec?" would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even if I worked in a private office, someone knocking on the door would deserve enough attention to explain their situation. I don't think I've ever worked at a place where I could get away with telling my colleagues "don't come talk to me unless we have an appointment". Being available to help is part of the job.
  - eganist 6y ago
    People like to maintain control over their own time and attention; I totally get it. But you're right, I'm also surprised at the extremes to which people are taking it, going so far as to assume that ephemerality and confidentiality mean the conversation is somehow immoral or illegal. That's the kind of argument law enforcement makes against the use of encryption. It's an interesting double standard on HN. I work infosec. My frame of reference is different from many here. But there are many times where I: • want to ensure a synchronous conversation about an urgent matter, and • don't want someone forwarding a "quick blurb" ("Hey, eganist here. Got an urgent moment to talk about something unusual we're seeing with web service X?") and spreading workplace gossip about a security anomaly when the anomaly itself is still being investigated to determine whether it's an incident.