Ajoy Bhatia <ajoy.bha...@gmail.com> 於 2015年8月11日週二 2:11 寫道:
> Just wanted to make a comment on the mail from Louis Suárez-Potts < > lui...@gmail.com>, in which he related his conversation with James H., a > Slack engineer. Comments are inline below. Highlighting is mine: > > So, I pinged the nice folks at Slack (and they really are nice!, or at > > least the guy I communicated with), and asked them about: > > > > * open source: No. > > * the issue of uncaptured conversations, as Ted D. mentioned ("there is a > > huge danger of *off-list discussions*…"). > > > > > Here, I interpret "off-list discussions" to mean: "discussions occurring on > Slack that are not captured on the mailing list. > > > > > > To the latter, which James H. of Slack recognised as important, he > > suggested: > > > > <quote> > > > > ...our new-ish reactions feature: > > http://slackhq.com/post/123561085920/reactions > > One team I'm in has coopted a particular emoji to *flag conversations as > > off-topic – a friendly but brief way to say "please take this > elsewhere"*. > > This probably wouldn't work for the social dynamics of every team, but it > > does work in this particular case. > > > > </quote> > > > > > The Slack engineer (James H.) and Louis (see below) both seem to have > misunderstood "off-list", and confused it with "off-topic". The two are not > the same. > > I further replied that in this case that the technical solution seemed > > interesting but that *given the basic nature of the problem (it’s a human > > thing), I’d guess that the solution will necessarily include discipline*. > > Cutting off options is going to get increasingly hard and we (Apache) run > > the risk of coming to seem fustian, stodgy, obsolete, old fashioned and > > everything else. Perhaps—as with GitHub—discipline and then yet more > > recognition of the importance of inclusive community, is the ticket. > > > Thanks... > - Ajoy > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015/8/11 上午1:35於 "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com>寫道: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's important to recognize how the board and the > > foundation > > > > > > have handled this issue over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The absolute requirement is open decision-making. Avoiding > > real-time > > > > > > communications avoids many possible failures of open > > decision-making. > > > > > > (Not, of course, all.) After all, the simplest primrose path here > > is > > > > > > two people standing at the intersection of their cubicles. The > > policy > > > > > > has always been to sternly warn that the use of real time > > mechanisms > > > > > > involves risks of failure, and that failure involves risks of the > > > > > > board's blunt instruments being deployed. Does all of this slow > > down > > > > > > some processes, and cause some people of limited patience / > > boundless > > > > > > energy to get frustrated? Yup, things have costs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just writing up the results on the mailing list isn't good enough > > if > > > > > > there is no real opportunity for people to question, deliberate, > > and > > > > > > change the course of action. > > > > > > > > > > > > You want to have a bar camp, a con call, a slack discussion, a > set > > of > > > > > > messages exchanged by carrier pigeon? Then it's up to you to make > > sure > > > > > > that you don't end up excluding people from the decision-making > > > > > > process. > > >