3 ms·

> Some employees prefer not to communicate that way. I think it depends on the purpose of the team as to whether people should change. I’m technology, if the

> Some employees prefer not to communicate that way. I think it depends on the purpose of the team as to whether people should change. I’m technology, if the purpose is to build things well then the people who like to emotionally nuance things in synchronous communication should do more async because that works better for building. It really frustrates me when I analyze a problem, thoughtfully write up a solution and send it out. And then someone (or several) wants to meet to talk about it. Then the meeting has nothing persistent than a feeling and the details get lost and a week later people forget the resolution. And want to meet again. I guess if there’s no accretive development it doesn’t matter, like sales or restaurants or whatever. But there seems to be a better way to design and execute complex things.

jensensbutton 5y ago
> the people who like to emotionally nuance things in synchronous communication should do more async because that works better for building. Citation needed. Pretty much everything of any complexity that has been built to date, in human history (including software), was built with synchronous communication (not to say things aren't written, but things are ALWAYS discussed).
- prepend 5y ago
  Let me clarify, I’m not saying that we should never synchronously communicate, but that it is not the sole or primary communication. My comment was about the tendency to avoid writing over speaking. I think we need lots of writing and some speaking. Software in particular is easier to “say it in code” than to just talk and talk and talk. I’d say my preference is write-up, then talk, then follow up with write-up. My complaint is the constant redirection to only talk and never write up.
- u801e 5y ago
  > Pretty much everything of any complexity that has been built to date, in human history (including software), was built with synchronous communication (not to say things aren't written, but things are ALWAYS discussed). What about open source projects like the Linux kernel and git? As I understand it discussion primarily takes place on the mailing lists, which are, by their very nature, a form of asynchronous communication.

jensensbutton 5y ago

> the people who like to emotionally nuance things in synchronous communication should do more async because that works better for building. Citation needed. Pretty much everything of any complexity that has been built to date, in human history (including software), was built with synchronous communication (not to say things aren't written, but things are ALWAYS discussed).

prepend 5y ago
Let me clarify, I’m not saying that we should never synchronously communicate, but that it is not the sole or primary communication. My comment was about the tendency to avoid writing over speaking. I think we need lots of writing and some speaking. Software in particular is easier to “say it in code” than to just talk and talk and talk. I’d say my preference is write-up, then talk, then follow up with write-up. My complaint is the constant redirection to only talk and never write up.
u801e 5y ago
> Pretty much everything of any complexity that has been built to date, in human history (including software), was built with synchronous communication (not to say things aren't written, but things are ALWAYS discussed). What about open source projects like the Linux kernel and git? As I understand it discussion primarily takes place on the mailing lists, which are, by their very nature, a form of asynchronous communication.