|
ChubbyThePhat posted:A ticket came in: You have not seen so many privileged tears than when we enabled automatic attachment of Google Meet links to calendar events in GCal. Apparently some people had in-person-only meetings, and some had other video sharing tools they preferred, but somehow the existence of a Meet was the END OF EVERYTHING for them. When IT came back and said, "If you don't want the Meet, just click the X to delete it before you save the event and it'll be gone forever," the outcry was swift and intense. Because GOD FORBID you have to click to remove something that most of the company uses by default because you're using non-standard poo poo or can't be hosed to give your remote teammates an option to dial in.
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Have tier 1 gen up a new laptop and just take his and say it was infected with something. I've done this many times for similar reasons, ya'll are making poo poo hard. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
Dirt Road Junglist posted:You have not seen so many privileged tears than when we enabled automatic attachment of Google Meet links to calendar events in GCal. Apparently some people had in-person-only meetings, and some had other video sharing tools they preferred, but somehow the existence of a Meet was the END OF EVERYTHING for them. Honestly, I'd rather strangle myself than try to get people to use Skype for Business meetings ever again. It's the same everywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Honestly, I'd rather strangle myself than try to get people to use Skype for Business meetings ever again. It's the same everywhere. We only use it when interacting with MSFT, and it's still painful. Especially when I install the MSFT for Teams extension for a call, and then it decides to start on boot every time. I DIALED INTO ONE MSFT MEETING, gently caress CLEAN OFF TIL I ASK YOU TO RUN AGAIN, YOU USELESS gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Teams is pretty good tho?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
kensei posted:Teams is pretty good tho? I mainly use skype to search for people in the company directory, see that they are still employed (based on if they still exist in Skype) and then see if they are in the office (based on if they are online and therefore logged into an office computer) Then I know whether they are deliberately dodging my phone calls/emails. I haven't seen a way to do that in Teams. Is it possible?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
Shut up Meg posted:I mainly use skype to search for people in the company directory, see that they are still employed (based on if they still exist in Skype) and then see if they are in the office (based on if they are online and therefore logged into an office computer) If your teams staff hasn't locked/hosed it up there is the "who" bot which will let you find names and see the GAL data of one user, inclusive of status.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
SlowBloke posted:If your teams staff hasn't locked/hosed it up there is the "who" bot which will let you find names and see the GAL data of one user, inclusive of status. Cool, many thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
kensei posted:Teams is pretty good tho? Its utter garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
AlexDeGruven posted:Its utter garbage. We're dumping slack for teams right now. People are... not happy
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
I don't care what IM program we use anymore, I just want the entire company on it. Seriously, the fragmenting of communication channels is killing me. We got MatterMost and Slack and Confluence and Teams and SfB and email and phone and some fuckhead wandering by my desk, all at the same time. Hopefully they'll kill SfB and move everyone to Teams, soon, because SfB is horrific.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:I don't care what IM program we use anymore, I just want the entire company on it. Yeah, I will agree that Teams is a huge improvement over SfB.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Everyone: "Monopolies are bad" Also everyone: "Fragmentation makes the software industry hell" Maybe this would work better as a Distracted Boyfriend
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Everyone: "Monopolies are bad" There's a difference, here. Every organization should be free to choose from multiple products to find the one that best meets the needs of the org. But once they've chosen, allowing users to fragment it makes for lots of friction. Or to put it another way: Multiple choices for each organization to choose from? Good. Single choice? Bad. Multiple choices for end users within each organization to choose from? Bad. Single choice? Good.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:There's a difference, here. Every organization should be free to choose from multiple products to find the one that best meets the needs of the org. But once they've chosen, allowing users to fragment it makes for lots of friction. What if: Democratic Centralism but software?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
Teams is good. We move from HipChat almost a year ago at this point. What else does Slack as a company have besides their chat program? I'm surprised they haven't been aquired yet.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Even having multiple platforms with interop isn't ideal because the interop is always lowest common denominator stuff and it soon becomes easier to run multiple clients.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Chat is a scourge upon the workplace. People expecting instant responses are the worst. Even worse is the group known as the “hi” people. All of the chat options are just varying degrees of bad. Just like antivirus
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Spring Heeled Jack posted:Teams is good. We move from HipChat almost a year ago at this point. As far as I know, they have plans to go public later this year. Also, their IPO is going to be to allow shareholders to sell existing shares not to raise money. I'm not sure if that will affect keeping a majority stake, but probably not. Most IPOs are set up so the company still maintains its majority. Fake Edit: Found the article I had read about a month ago. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/26/18518022/slack-public-offering-ipo-announced-sk-stock quote:Slack plans to go public. The company behind the popular workplace chat app filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, revealing plans to list on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “SK.” In an unusual move, the public offering won’t raise money for Slack; it’ll just allow existing shareholders to begin selling their stock.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Virigoth posted:Chat is a scourge upon the workplace. People expecting instant responses are the worst. Even worse is the group known as the “hi” people. All of the chat options are just varying degrees of bad. Just like antivirus Hmm... yes. I totally want to walk over to a more senior dev, ask them for advice on how to do something, have to write it down, then come back and implement it, as opposed to asking them on chat, getting a response there, not having to get up, and having it logged for future reference incase I lose my written notes.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:I don't care what IM program we use anymore, I just want the entire company on it. We have this problem too, and it's our fault because we're the ones implementing all of them. We are now standing up a fourth service. Most people in the organization use zero (0) of these available services.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
Chat is fine in the workplace, if things are critical and you need immediate responses, pick up the phone; it's not the chat programs fault people are dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Virigoth posted:
This. Just loving say what you need from me already.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Virigoth posted:Chat is a scourge upon the workplace. People expecting instant responses are the worst. Even worse is the group known as the “hi” people. All of the chat options are just varying degrees of bad. Just like antivirus Person I've never talked to before: "Hi, name, how are you?" Me: I'm good. You? Person: "Great. Say, can you do this thing for me that's not a part of your group's responsibilities on a system you don't have access to?"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
I'd almost consider giving up the instant communication of chat if it meant never dealing with another 'hi <kyrosiris>' with no followup.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
I'm okay with "hi" and then waiting for a follow up. Most everyone in my group knows to at least say "good morning / afternoon" to me before diving into their question. Feels good to be treated like a person and not have some rando just barrage you with a question, first thing. What turns me into a frothing-at-the mouth psychopath is when the first (and only) thing they say is my name. Just their entire message consists of "[my name]" and then silence. What sort of idiot searches for my name, clicks on my name, sees my name on the chat window, and then ... types my name? I mean, what the gently caress, are you just not sure if you screwed up one of those steps?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Everyone: "Monopolies are bad" 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:This. Just loving say what you need from me already. Counterpoint: if I don't know whether they're actually at their desk or not (because I can't trust the idiot-designed activity indicator and/or maybe they JUST stepped away), and I can get what I need from either them or one of three or four other people, I'm going to send a quick "hi" to see if they respond quickly. If I type out a huge request, a) it's that much wasted effort if they don't respond, and b) if I copy-paste the actual request to several different people then I get several different people eventually spending cycles getting back to me and possibly trying to solve the problem redundantly. I mean there's a reason there's a SYN-ACK sequence
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Use group DMs then.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Hi, Inspector_666 here to show you how to put a greeting in with your information and/or request so you can send it all as one message and not waste anybody's time. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Use group DMs then. a) the chat system in question / globally spread office dynamic where nobody actually sits together with anyone else from their team or knows who else is even on the team doesn't really permit this, and b) a group DM just ends up with everyone going "someone else will reply" Just saying, the "hi" is an emergent phenomenon informed by circumstances and is the most efficient solution we've come up with
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:I'm okay with "hi" and then waiting for a follow up. Most everyone in my group knows to at least say "good morning / afternoon" to me before diving into their question. Feels good to be treated like a person and not have some rando just barrage you with a question, first thing. I'm not saying don't use a greeting or anything, just that something like "hey, kyrosiris, sorry to bother - do you know if $SYSTEM can do $THING" is infinitely preferable to me - especially when I'm busy - to "hi kyrosiris *crickets for 20+ minutes*".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Counterpoint: if I don't know whether they're actually at their desk or not (because I can't trust the idiot-designed activity indicator and/or maybe they JUST stepped away), and I can get what I need from either them or one of three or four other people, I'm going to send a quick "hi" to see if they respond quickly. If I type out a huge request, a) it's that much wasted effort if they don't respond, and b) if I copy-paste the actual request to several different people then I get several different people eventually spending cycles getting back to me and possibly trying to solve the problem redundantly. This is what I don't like: quote:Idiot co-worker: hi I'd much prefer this: quote:Non-idiot co-worker:Hi, could you do <x>?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:I'm not saying don't use a greeting or anything, just that something like "hey, kyrosiris, sorry to bother - do you know if $SYSTEM can do $THING" is infinitely preferable to me - especially when I'm busy - to "hi kyrosiris *crickets for 20+ minutes*". Yeah, I'm talking more along the lines of "Hi" "Hi" "If you've got a few minutes, I need your help providing some sample API payloads because the documentation on your app seems to be out of date. Could you dig into the code and tell me what the volume_attachments endpoint returns?" E: ^^ Yeah the above is what that bash.org line about "stab people in the face over the internet" was invented for
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Yeah, I'm talking more along the lines of Yeah, this is what I do. Me: "hey, X. Good morning" Them: "Hi." Me: "sorry to bother you, but could you do Y" Dudes who immediately abandon ship after saying hi can get bent.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:
FTFY I can also do FizzBuzz in one line of code.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Hi. <thing you want to talk about> or get the gently caress out
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
You’re meant to do what someone on my team does which is to leave missed calls on your phone, send multiple “hi”, “you there?” IMs and then send you an email asking to call them when you get a chance. At no point is the topic of conversation ever mentioned. I’ve also started declining meetings that don’t have an attempt at an agenda / short sentence on what the aim of the meeting is contained in the invite.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Clearly the writers of RFC1855 missed an important point.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
http://www.nohello.com/
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:27
|
|
