> I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
That would have been my reply, too.
> I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
That would have been my reply, too.
Ditto. The contributions are saying 'hello' and soliciting input, in one. Also providing the contributor with an opportunity to learn the product in their terms.
I know, I know. The horror of an individual for us all.
I assume the proposition is this: one has no chance to produce value without firm guidance from the onset. Or the time learning is a tragedy. I doubt both of these very much. PRs are another conversation.
The others are free to take their turns. In this hypothetical, apparently, the other side has been unresponsive. Where's their ire; left behind at the bar?
Sorry we didn't apply the correct social pressure or wait until everyone was available at the same time for a call, I guess. I understand how that might hurt optics... I, the baby with superpowers in this scenario, just don't/can't care.
Handholding isn't a requirement. Guess what is: communicating the changes. Look at the PRs. Now that management is involved, we can have a meeting about them going unattended.
I assume the proposition is that trust between coworkers is important (even if you're autistic) and the best way to build extra trust with someone, on top of what you'd normally build just working with them, is to interact with them socially (unless they're autistic and haven't memorised this pattern, in such case they'll just be confused and annoyed).
I think your assumption that this is about "firm guidance" and "optics" and is an insult to your "superpowers" is unlikely to be the motivation.
"How can we have any pudding if we don't eat our meat?!"
Let's worry about extra trust once they start earning trust (and, arguably, their pay) by reviewing the PRs. Leaving those floating deserves none, from nobody.
To reiterate the original post, behaving as if they're a member of the team would be quite welcome, actually. Fun, no: work.
Has there been any hint that the PRs were not being reviewed? I haven't read any suggestion of that in the direct chain of replies.
Sure. Look not to the replies, but the top of the thread. The 'hint':
> " ... can't they read my PRs?"
I know one really good way to answer that. The requirement for the question suggests the same for review.
You're misreading it. Reading the speaker's PRs is presented as an alternative to talking to them, in the same way that if Alice and Bob were arguing whether song lyric sites should exist and Alice asked "can't they listen to the song?", it would be a rhetorical question and would not indicate that Bob did not listen to the song he wanted to read the lyrics of.
Hah. Disagree, don't care to continue. Have fun/take care.