3 ms·

Yeah, that's my point though. Once a company hits a certain size, those people will exist no matter what you do. It's just a personality that a certain percent

Yeah, that's my point though. Once a company hits a certain size, those people will exist no matter what you do. It's just a personality that a certain percent of people have. If it's just one or two people you can probably correct that but when you have hundreds or thousands of employees, it's unreasonable to think you can get everyone to see the problems they are causing. The way to avoid letting those people interfere is to let me direct message the people I need to talk to. Why are you taking that away from me?

ethbr0 4y ago
I mean, you can also just pretend they don't exist. Not going to lie, I've seen that happen in Slack threads when someone random is inserting themselves in an unhelpful way.
- superfrank 4y ago
  I think it's a bit rude to just pretend the person doesn't exist and I feel like it would make the problem even worse. This person who didn't need to be in the conversation is now feeling ignored, so you've now got hurt feelings layered on top of what ever other problem you're trying to solve. Also, I can't control everyone else in the thread. Even if I ignore the person that doesn't mean other people will. All it takes is one person engaging and it pulls the thread off topic. It just seems weird to me... I hear people complain so often about how meetings (especially big meetings) are useless because they get off topic and it's super easy for a few loud voices to take over, but then we want radical transparency on Slack. Also, also, I think it's funny that we're still pushing this idea of radical transparency when it turned out to be a total sham at one of the poster child companies for it ("Away"). It ended up being massively toxic and radical transparency was really just a way for management to ensure they could have an opinion on everything and leadership didn't hold themselves to the same rules. https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo-steph-korey-toxic-work-environment-travel-inclusion https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo...

ethbr0 4y ago

I mean, you can also just pretend they don't exist. Not going to lie, I've seen that happen in Slack threads when someone random is inserting themselves in an unhelpful way.

superfrank 4y ago
I think it's a bit rude to just pretend the person doesn't exist and I feel like it would make the problem even worse. This person who didn't need to be in the conversation is now feeling ignored, so you've now got hurt feelings layered on top of what ever other problem you're trying to solve. Also, I can't control everyone else in the thread. Even if I ignore the person that doesn't mean other people will. All it takes is one person engaging and it pulls the thread off topic. It just seems weird to me... I hear people complain so often about how meetings (especially big meetings) are useless because they get off topic and it's super easy for a few loud voices to take over, but then we want radical transparency on Slack. Also, also, I think it's funny that we're still pushing this idea of radical transparency when it turned out to be a total sham at one of the poster child companies for it ("Away"). It ended up being massively toxic and radical transparency was really just a way for management to ensure they could have an opinion on everything and leadership didn't hold themselves to the same rules. https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo-steph-korey-toxic-work-environment-travel-inclusion https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo...