4 ms·

If you're at a place where this would be "forced", then I'd argue that that place is the problem, not the existence of such a product. I can imagine us setting

by Vinnl 5y ago

If you're at a place where this would be "forced", then I'd argue that that place is the problem, not the existence of such a product. I can imagine us setting this up as a team, bottom-up, though. (Similar to how e.g. I've been at two organisations where donut.com is available, but it being completely optional in both cases.)

Avicebron 5y ago
Maybe forced isn't the right term, I'm referring to non-mandated systems that occur organically. Not that I've experienced this too much personally, but I have had co-workers who would often be deliberately left out by management or not given contracts by the project managers (it was the nature of the work that some jobs were better than others, less sketchy <biotech>) because they weren't considered "friendly" to them. Luckily I was social and often made connections with those people, but I didn't feel like it was a fair system. I think it's part of human tribalism, if some group clicks, it can cause repercussions across the whole main group/dept.
- Vinnl 5y ago
  I think my general concern still holds then: such a place will probably be shitty regardless of whether such a tool is used or not.
JohnFen 5y ago
That's not much different from being forced, really. If you dislike this sort of thing but are on a team that adopts it, it's not really optional no matter how much everyone says it is. It would be a bit like office parties in that respect -- technically optional, but bad for your career if you opt out.
- Vinnl 5y ago
  I mean, you have a say in whether to adopt it if you're part of the team. It might be different elsewhere, but you could and people did opt-out in the teams I saw donut.com being used. Again, I think it's not the tool that's the problem, but the team, in that I don't think a team whose use of the tool is problematic wouldn't have problems if the tool didn't exist.

by Vinnl 5y ago

Avicebron 5y ago

Maybe forced isn't the right term, I'm referring to non-mandated systems that occur organically. Not that I've experienced this too much personally, but I have had co-workers who would often be deliberately left out by management or not given contracts by the project managers (it was the nature of the work that some jobs were better than others, less sketchy <biotech>) because they weren't considered "friendly" to them. Luckily I was social and often made connections with those people, but I didn't feel like it was a fair system. I think it's part of human tribalism, if some group clicks, it can cause repercussions across the whole main group/dept.

Vinnl 5y ago
I think my general concern still holds then: such a place will probably be shitty regardless of whether such a tool is used or not.

JohnFen 5y ago

That's not much different from being forced, really. If you dislike this sort of thing but are on a team that adopts it, it's not really optional no matter how much everyone says it is. It would be a bit like office parties in that respect -- technically optional, but bad for your career if you opt out.

Vinnl 5y ago
I mean, you have a say in whether to adopt it if you're part of the team. It might be different elsewhere, but you could and people did opt-out in the teams I saw donut.com being used. Again, I think it's not the tool that's the problem, but the team, in that I don't think a team whose use of the tool is problematic wouldn't have problems if the tool didn't exist.