Hacker News Reader

Comment by apexalpha | Hacker News Reader

I don't know the original author but as a non-native speaker I guess I miss the cultural connotation surrounding "hop on a call".

Doesn't seem weird to me, seems apt to ask to escalate the method of communication when a serious issue like this arises.

Would you consider it more respectful to deal with this issue just by posting in the thread?

View on HN

It's a community matter posted in a public place, a non-statement with an immediate attempt to direct it to private conversation reads like trying to avoid attention to your mistakes (e.g. hypothetically you don't have to public admit you didn't do anything to check for guidelines to follow). More vibe-y, it all sounds very corporate, like any PR statement in response to criticism ever, or a manager writing to an employee in a big corp, not "humans working together in a community, and one of the humans is clearly pissed off right now".

Also while it's phrased as a question, it doesn't offer any alternative next step. So a better approach would be writing down the initial questions you have and then offer that you'd be open for a call if the OP prefers that. If they don't, they can immediately engage with your questions, and they are open to everybody else in the community. Whereas right now if they say "no, I don't want to call you" that's all you've given them.

(To be clear I can easily believe the writer of the response is not intending any of that and means well, but that's how it comes across)

I am from the UK, and I also think this is true. Hop on a call and the wording sounds like they do not want to fix the issue

It comes across very condecending. Maybe it is a US problem

Reading other comments, US folks seem divided; I am with you and the others on this side of the fence, I've seen this exact situation play out in corporate life many times. They are attempting to quiet a public discussion of dissent and dissatisfaction.

I’m an American. The response is coded as “do nothing”. The proper response here would be to say “we’re going to roll back the changes until we understand and fix things that are going wrong.” The individual may not have INTENDED the dismissive due to the way American corporate language has internalize “do nothing, take no position, take no risk, admit no fault” but it’s definitely the tone. Essentially this is a human problem: how do you deal with someone motivated by project passion rather than revenue goals or personal income? It happens ALL THE TIME with nonprofits interacting poorly with volunteers because the motivations and associated daily language are so divergent.

Non-native here. People "hop on a call" to have a personal guide that helps in stepping through tasks of a proposed solution. Such a call is made to remove ambiguity and provide immediate feedback, to apply the solution as seamless as possible. Used in the context here (without a proposed solution) it just screams "let's avoid public outcry" with a touch of "why don't you overthink your annoyances with me".

Hop on a call is very informal language, and suggests that this is just a small problem we can quickly workaround. The issue isn't so much the idea of getting in a direct call (though there are problems with that as well, especially the tendency to remove this from the record). It's the wording that suggests this is a tiny issue that we can just "hop" on a call to address.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com