5 ms·

I do code reviews as the meat of my job and have personally benefited from GitLab's handbook article on this topic [1] - No ego (Don't defend a point to wi

I do code reviews as the meat of my job and have personally benefited from GitLab's handbook article on this topic [1] - No ego (Don't defend a point to win an argument or double-down on a mistake.) - Assume positive intent (If a message feels like a slight, assume positive intent while asking for clarification.) - Get to know each other (Building a rapport enables trust.) - Say thanks (Taking every opportunity to share praise creates a climate where feedback is viewed as a gift rather than an attack.) - Kindness (It costs nothing to be kind, even if you do not believe someone deserves it.) - It's impossible to know everything (You can't know how your words are interpreted without asking.) - Short toes (GitLab is a place where others can feel comfortable with others contributing to their domains of expertise.) Specific to your situation, I'd focus on what others have said as well. If they *need* to perform something as part of their job role, remove the suggestion and place an imperative. Ex: "This needs to be a separate function" vs "You should. . .". > Communicate assuming others have low context. We provide as much context as possible to avoid confusion. It also helps to provide context, especially if you have a particular fix in mind. "See this PR/MR for someone who encountered a similar situation recently." Hope this helps. 1. https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/effective-communication/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/effectiv...

oldjavacoder 4y ago
I agree with "Don't defend a point to win an argument or double-down on a mistake.". I disagree with the juxtaposition that ego is bad, i.e. "no ego". Ego is defined by Oxford as "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.", I agree. Ego isn't bad. To use it in a context directly indicating it's bad is wrong. If the world agrees to do away with the word ego then it must be replaced by something that also means "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.". A coder without any ego is a coder who doesn't care, at all, about anything.
- duped 4y ago
  It feels unnecessarily pedantic to debate the usage of a word in a common English idiom, especially with an outdated definition from Oxford. It would be clearer to just say, "don't be an asshole" but that comes off as crass in professional communications.
  - kubanczyk 4y ago
    On the contrary, HN is the place to debate the usage of words. Precise word choice is how to effectively get your point across. Words should have more definitions than the obvious two ("something universally good" and "something universally stupid, annoying, embarrassing, and smelling like fart") and it's not a shame to talk about subtleties of their definitions.

oldjavacoder 4y ago

I agree with "Don't defend a point to win an argument or double-down on a mistake.". I disagree with the juxtaposition that ego is bad, i.e. "no ego". Ego is defined by Oxford as "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.", I agree. Ego isn't bad. To use it in a context directly indicating it's bad is wrong. If the world agrees to do away with the word ego then it must be replaced by something that also means "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.". A coder without any ego is a coder who doesn't care, at all, about anything.

duped 4y ago
It feels unnecessarily pedantic to debate the usage of a word in a common English idiom, especially with an outdated definition from Oxford. It would be clearer to just say, "don't be an asshole" but that comes off as crass in professional communications.
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  On the contrary, HN is the place to debate the usage of words. Precise word choice is how to effectively get your point across. Words should have more definitions than the obvious two ("something universally good" and "something universally stupid, annoying, embarrassing, and smelling like fart") and it's not a shame to talk about subtleties of their definitions.