3 ms·

Earlier the author talked about Slack, so I take that to mean "public channel" or some other in-company "public." Then "private" in this context may also be a d

by Cpoll 4y ago

Earlier the author talked about Slack, so I take that to mean "public channel" or some other in-company "public." Then "private" in this context may also be a description of a feature of the conversation, not necessarily an expectation of privacy. If your company culture accepts that a private DM conversation may be pulled into a public conversation, there's no breach of trust. To be charitable, "speak up to take the conversation" could actually mean "I propose we move this conversation to #public_channel." Personally, I don't even consider it unhealthy. DMs are for convenience, work conversations are better off with more visibility.

re-thc 4y ago
Anything that is private is assumed to be private. Trust is a 2 way street. Could at least just ask the other party. Why does it have to be automatic? Whatever is the company culture it is respected for the person at the other end.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Anything that is private is assumed to be private Have you been involved in a deposition or a legal hold? If you're worried about your colleagues seeing your DMs, then perhaps ponder on the consequences of the same messages becoming part of the public record via the courts or regulatory body. Nothing communicated in the execution of your duty is truly private: check the fine print in your organization's policies.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I am so confused how on earth so many people are reading this and not realizing this is exactly about asking the other party: > someone would speak up to take the conversation to a public channel, and things returned to a more constructive tone. That's literally "hey, let's take this to a public channel?" The top level reply is from someone who presumably speaks a different language primarily, and may have missed the nuance of the statement. But it's almost like the 15+ replies are from people who didn't read the article and took this person's wrong interpretation as the truth.

by Cpoll 4y ago

re-thc 4y ago

Anything that is private is assumed to be private. Trust is a 2 way street. Could at least just ask the other party. Why does it have to be automatic? Whatever is the company culture it is respected for the person at the other end.

sangnoir 4y ago
> Anything that is private is assumed to be private Have you been involved in a deposition or a legal hold? If you're worried about your colleagues seeing your DMs, then perhaps ponder on the consequences of the same messages becoming part of the public record via the courts or regulatory body. Nothing communicated in the execution of your duty is truly private: check the fine print in your organization's policies.
BoorishBears 4y ago
I am so confused how on earth so many people are reading this and not realizing this is exactly about asking the other party: > someone would speak up to take the conversation to a public channel, and things returned to a more constructive tone. That's literally "hey, let's take this to a public channel?" The top level reply is from someone who presumably speaks a different language primarily, and may have missed the nuance of the statement. But it's almost like the 15+ replies are from people who didn't read the article and took this person's wrong interpretation as the truth.