5 ms·

> I believe the OP should write down all their questions in a structured format, and then schedule a meetings with 1 person helping them onboard, ... Let me gu

by cauch 3y ago

> I believe the OP should write down all their questions in a structured format, and then schedule a meetings with 1 person helping them onboard, ... Let me guess: that 1 person will of course not be you, right? Because if it is you, I bet you will complain even more. Also, it's ridiculous to pretend that all questions require deep dive at length. Some do, and, yes, I agree we should do that for those. But what about the majority of the questions? If these questions still exist, then you will still be interrupted, so it will not solve the situation. Also, it is quite telling that you did not also consider another solution: if they need to ask you a question, you could have avoided that by properly sharing the information before hand. But of course, it's always someone else's fault. (just to be clear: it is sometimes someone else's fault, but your way of reacting of just thinking that everyone else should adapt is just giving me the impression that you don't care about solving the problem in a fair way) But it does not answer my question: what you ask them to do is very inconvenient and inefficient, as the large majority of questions do not correspond to big dangerous lack of knowledge that needs 3 hours lecture course to be solved. So we still have the problem: why should the company pay for one person being less efficient because of needing to do all this useless process, instead of paying for you being less efficient? > I do put noise suppression headphones, but they can't stop the people moving in front of me ... As I've said, I don't understand how people can be in "deep flow" and be so easily distracted by people moving around. People are different, so I can understand it can be a problem for you. But my problem with this reaction is that everything is centered around what is best for you, without any considerations of how it affects others. I reacted because you first mentioned that GP was behaving like a toddler, but in your reaction and the description of the problem, you seems to focus on you, you, you, which does not look very grown-up either, don't you think? > ... nor the taps on my shoulder If they tap on your shoulder, you should simply answer, like a grown-up does. > Not wanting to be interrupted is not forcing others to take care of your needs.If you are unsure what I mean, let me call you in the middle of the night ... But you are not complaining about being interrupted in the middle of the night to talk about things that is not related to you, you are complaining about doing your job: working with colleagues and sharing information so that they can progress. What I'm saying is simple: 1) you can be a toddler and interrupt someone constantly for no good reason. This is not good and unprofessional 2) you can be a toddler and cry when someone interrupt you for a good reason. This is not good and unprofessional 3) the good situation is in the middle: you WILL have some level of interruption, it is just unreasonable to expect otherwise and it is childish to ask people to jump through hoops to care to your need to never be interrupted. > How dare you forcing me to have normal boundaries and call you at reasonable times! You don't have normal boundaries. Grown-ups at work know that they will interact with other people. You inventing that people should not interact with you, or interact only in your own terms even when it is inconvenient for them. > Hence me liking the OP's behavior to that of a toddler. OP's behavior did not even mention if they interrupt people that have inform them they don't want to be interrupted. As far as we know, OP's behavior is 100% compatible with what you want.

ath3nd 3y ago
> Let me guess: that 1 person will of course not be you, right? Because if it is you, I bet you will complain even more. I don't mind it being me, as a matter of fact, it's often me, as I am in a more senior position and have a lot of historic context. However, a lot of time has been spent on documenting most things, so often I am just going over the docs with the new onboarder, which is okay, as long as it's done in a structural manner. > You don't have normal boundaries. Grown-ups at work know that they will interact with other people. You inventing that people should not interact with you, or interact only in your own terms even when it is inconvenient for them. I don't mind interacting at all, nor do I mind onboarding. I do mind, however, being interrupted all the time, on information, that could easily have been condensed in an onboarding package if the company gave people the space, time and initiative to create such a package. What I am pointing out is that the OP experienced bad onboarding and thought the solution to that is being in-person in the office. I would argue what they simply had was a badly planned onboarding, with randomly shared responsibility across the team, and an ad-hoc learning plan. If the OP's company uses that lesson and makes a better onboarding process, that'd be great and they might even reconsider the need to be there in person. > you are complaining about doing your job: working with colleagues and sharing information so that they can progress. I would love share the information, but I want to do it in a structured manner, and not in chunks and without disruptions. That's why schools and unis have classes, and classes have predictable and scheduled time frames. It's not just a building with teachers, and random children entering ad hoc and asking whatever question came to their head, then leaving, and coming back 5 min later. And what's wrong with wanting lots of this information to be self-service? That's the whole idea of knowledge bases, of onboarding docs, of developer handbooks. What does it have to with people being in person or not? I'd argue if the OP's company spent the effort in actually putting all that knowledge in writing, they will have an easier and less disruptive onboarding to the team, with reduced bus factor, and clearly documented steps.
- cauch 3y ago
  > I don't mind it being me, as a matter of fact, it's often me, as I am in a more senior position and have a lot of historic context. However, a lot of time has been spent on documenting most things, so often I am just going over the docs with the new onboarder, which is okay, as long as it's done in a structural manner. So, according to you, no one would ever need to ask you a question. So, obviously, GP will never ask you a question (they will ask other people if they want to). So why are you calling them "toddler"? > I do mind, however, being interrupted all the time, on information, that could easily have been condensed in an onboarding package if the company gave people the space, time and initiative to create such a package. This is not at all what OP was presenting. You realize that? > What I am pointing out is that the OP experienced bad onboarding and thought the solution to that is being in-person in the office. That is not true. Plenty of people are having a very good onboarding and still like to fine-tune their understanding of the situation, which is arguably a very good way to reach good software. > would love share the information, but I want to do it in a structured manner, and not in chunks and without disruptions. But that is exactly the point of my initial comment about workflow. When your colleague Johnny needs the quick and simple information X to allow him to finish his code (for example "I've read what ath3nd has written in the doc, but it is ambiguous because sometimes it is, obviously ath3nd is not a god who can read mind and think of all the interpretation of their comment, especially when ath3nd is also not expected to not introduce a bug in the code from time to time"), you are asking him to break his flow, write some kind of ticket, wait for it to be triaged and come to you and wait for you to answer. Your initial point is that you need to not be interrupted when you are in your flow, and you are now arguing that we should use a very flow interrupting process for the other participants. > That's why schools and unis have classes ... Are you seriously pretending that GP that just said "asking quick questions and getting an instant answer" is in fact in favor of not having any structure at all? In fact, guess what, in a lot of classes, students are allowed to ask questions during some part of the lecture, even during exercises. Yes, incredible, right: some students are concentrating on solving the exercises while others _talk_! They _talk_! In the same room! Instead of writing a written letter to the teacher and wait for the post return so they can proceed with the exercise they have a question about. > And what's wrong with wanting lots of this information to be self-service? No one here is arguing against that. Simply, you can have as much self-service you want, it will never make a quick and simple question not the most efficient way to go. It is just incredible that some people are so self-centered that they cannot understand that asking simple and quick questions is just, SOMETIMES, a super pragmatical and efficient way of progressing.

by cauch 3y ago

ath3nd 3y ago

> Let me guess: that 1 person will of course not be you, right? Because if it is you, I bet you will complain even more. I don't mind it being me, as a matter of fact, it's often me, as I am in a more senior position and have a lot of historic context. However, a lot of time has been spent on documenting most things, so often I am just going over the docs with the new onboarder, which is okay, as long as it's done in a structural manner. > You don't have normal boundaries. Grown-ups at work know that they will interact with other people. You inventing that people should not interact with you, or interact only in your own terms even when it is inconvenient for them. I don't mind interacting at all, nor do I mind onboarding. I do mind, however, being interrupted all the time, on information, that could easily have been condensed in an onboarding package if the company gave people the space, time and initiative to create such a package. What I am pointing out is that the OP experienced bad onboarding and thought the solution to that is being in-person in the office. I would argue what they simply had was a badly planned onboarding, with randomly shared responsibility across the team, and an ad-hoc learning plan. If the OP's company uses that lesson and makes a better onboarding process, that'd be great and they might even reconsider the need to be there in person. > you are complaining about doing your job: working with colleagues and sharing information so that they can progress. I would love share the information, but I want to do it in a structured manner, and not in chunks and without disruptions. That's why schools and unis have classes, and classes have predictable and scheduled time frames. It's not just a building with teachers, and random children entering ad hoc and asking whatever question came to their head, then leaving, and coming back 5 min later. And what's wrong with wanting lots of this information to be self-service? That's the whole idea of knowledge bases, of onboarding docs, of developer handbooks. What does it have to with people being in person or not? I'd argue if the OP's company spent the effort in actually putting all that knowledge in writing, they will have an easier and less disruptive onboarding to the team, with reduced bus factor, and clearly documented steps.

cauch 3y ago
> I don't mind it being me, as a matter of fact, it's often me, as I am in a more senior position and have a lot of historic context. However, a lot of time has been spent on documenting most things, so often I am just going over the docs with the new onboarder, which is okay, as long as it's done in a structural manner. So, according to you, no one would ever need to ask you a question. So, obviously, GP will never ask you a question (they will ask other people if they want to). So why are you calling them "toddler"? > I do mind, however, being interrupted all the time, on information, that could easily have been condensed in an onboarding package if the company gave people the space, time and initiative to create such a package. This is not at all what OP was presenting. You realize that? > What I am pointing out is that the OP experienced bad onboarding and thought the solution to that is being in-person in the office. That is not true. Plenty of people are having a very good onboarding and still like to fine-tune their understanding of the situation, which is arguably a very good way to reach good software. > would love share the information, but I want to do it in a structured manner, and not in chunks and without disruptions. But that is exactly the point of my initial comment about workflow. When your colleague Johnny needs the quick and simple information X to allow him to finish his code (for example "I've read what ath3nd has written in the doc, but it is ambiguous because sometimes it is, obviously ath3nd is not a god who can read mind and think of all the interpretation of their comment, especially when ath3nd is also not expected to not introduce a bug in the code from time to time"), you are asking him to break his flow, write some kind of ticket, wait for it to be triaged and come to you and wait for you to answer. Your initial point is that you need to not be interrupted when you are in your flow, and you are now arguing that we should use a very flow interrupting process for the other participants. > That's why schools and unis have classes ... Are you seriously pretending that GP that just said "asking quick questions and getting an instant answer" is in fact in favor of not having any structure at all? In fact, guess what, in a lot of classes, students are allowed to ask questions during some part of the lecture, even during exercises. Yes, incredible, right: some students are concentrating on solving the exercises while others _talk_! They _talk_! In the same room! Instead of writing a written letter to the teacher and wait for the post return so they can proceed with the exercise they have a question about. > And what's wrong with wanting lots of this information to be self-service? No one here is arguing against that. Simply, you can have as much self-service you want, it will never make a quick and simple question not the most efficient way to go. It is just incredible that some people are so self-centered that they cannot understand that asking simple and quick questions is just, SOMETIMES, a super pragmatical and efficient way of progressing.