Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

> impediments shouldn't fester for a significant fraction of a day, and usually don't require synchronous team-wide communication.

It's very hard to make the call about when it's worth interrupting another team member. You're potentially setting back their work a significant amount, and it tends to feel like an admission of failure. Having a regular scheduled time to do it takes a lot of the sting out of it.

View on HN

> It's very hard to make the call about when it's worth interrupting another team member.

If an issue can wait for a daily standup, it can even moreso be communicated and any necessary synchronization planned through asynchronous communication which doesn't require interruption at all.

If your organisation has a good async communication culture, yes. Many don't.

I would gladly pay the cost of standup in exchange for a team culture that is reluctant about interruptions.

Most people get both standup and constant interruption.

Yeah, that's why I built my startup. Status is not a discrete event like standups pretend, but you also need a tool set that lets you raise issues without breaking people's flow. The proper way for this to work is to have your workflow system enforce some structure on severity and types of communication, and just notify you in priority order when you're ready to handle stuff. Shameless plug: my startup is Uclusion (https://www.uclusion.com)

I don't know where you've been working, but that hasn't been my experience. Shrug.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com