Hacker News Reader

If a group has the choice between realtime and asynchronous channels there needs to be a guideline for this.

If my org takes pride in consensus for everybody, everybody needs to have the time to submit input. It's not uncommon that some active users in a chat go for an ad-hoc decision just because they are more than one and want to work _now_. In the long term this damages the culture, splits the participants and is difficult for newcomers.

View on HN

I completely agree. Unfortunately, what I've seen more than once is that mgmt (or even someone from the rank-and-file) sees / experiences a new tool like Slack (or Campfire, or Hangouts, or...) and says "hey, great new tool we should use!" and that's the 'decision'. No thought given to how async comms biases development when developers are spread world-wide.

I gripe because I am a US left-coaster who works with a team that is increasingly based in Western Europe. By simply deciding to rely on Slack, they have essentially cut me from development conversations other than the weekly live session.

I feel ya, it's frustrating. Although I did not yet have a problem with time zones, I experienced being left out simply by joining the chat later in the evening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com