Your calendar should be an allowlist, not a blocklist(critter.blog)
critter.blog
Your calendar should be an allowlist, not a blocklist
https://critter.blog/2020/08/03/your-calendar-should-be-an-allowlist-not-a-blocklist/
87 comments
> The solution should be office hours. You should be able to say say “I’m free for meetings from 2-5pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and if you want to talk to me then that’s when you can.” In most companies, doing that would make you an annoyance. Those companies don’t respect Deep Work.
No, the main reason would be that it becomes impossible to schedule meetings when everyone only has that few arbitrarily selected office hours.
It might work when everyone in the team agrees to the same office hours, but even then, how do you schedule meetings to align between teams with different office hours?
No, the main reason would be that it becomes impossible to schedule meetings when everyone only has that few arbitrarily selected office hours.
It might work when everyone in the team agrees to the same office hours, but even then, how do you schedule meetings to align between teams with different office hours?
I permanently block off time for focused work, at least half a day each day, alternating mornings and afternoons, and one full day a week, meaning I have 4*4 = 16 hours available for meetings each week, and 24 hours available for work.
In those situations -- which happen maybe twice a year -- when a team meeting happens in the time blocked off, I flip it. So, if I have the morning blocked off for work and a meeting that I have to attend is in the morning, I block off the afternoon for work and cancel existing appointments, of course with apologies. That's pretty rare.
For anyone else outside my team or group that I work with normally, I tell them my calendar is open and they can book a time whenever I'm free.
I also urge people to use email when they think it's possible, since a lot things can be handled more efficiently async via email than via a meeting. A meeting is sometimes required, but it shouldn't be the automatic first choice.
I went over this plan with my manager and he thought it a great idea. Personally, I've found it significantly increases my productivity. All of this is a function of the corporate culture where you work, and I am not suggesting that you adopt practices that go against your company's culture, but the fact of the matter is that long periods of focused work are required to make big contributions, and if your corporate culture doesn't allow it, you may want to look elsewhere to make a big impact.
In those situations -- which happen maybe twice a year -- when a team meeting happens in the time blocked off, I flip it. So, if I have the morning blocked off for work and a meeting that I have to attend is in the morning, I block off the afternoon for work and cancel existing appointments, of course with apologies. That's pretty rare.
For anyone else outside my team or group that I work with normally, I tell them my calendar is open and they can book a time whenever I'm free.
I also urge people to use email when they think it's possible, since a lot things can be handled more efficiently async via email than via a meeting. A meeting is sometimes required, but it shouldn't be the automatic first choice.
I went over this plan with my manager and he thought it a great idea. Personally, I've found it significantly increases my productivity. All of this is a function of the corporate culture where you work, and I am not suggesting that you adopt practices that go against your company's culture, but the fact of the matter is that long periods of focused work are required to make big contributions, and if your corporate culture doesn't allow it, you may want to look elsewhere to make a big impact.
I guess the "office hours" have to be for 1-on-1s only, and then large meetings with many participants can be scheduled whenever.
> Does your company have a culture of letting everyone see each other’s calendars? Do people often schedule meetings whenever there are openings, without asking?
> If so, your calendar is a blocklist.
Sure, but what is this “schedule meetings, without asking”? Sending out meeting requests is asking. Having open calendars gives people a better first-glance idea of times that are likely to be acceptable and times that aren't.
> If so, your calendar is a blocklist.
Sure, but what is this “schedule meetings, without asking”? Sending out meeting requests is asking. Having open calendars gives people a better first-glance idea of times that are likely to be acceptable and times that aren't.
I was also a bit puzzled that blocking out time for yourself to work at your desk as considered a "crappy workaround". But then apparently the solution is to have 2pm-5pm as "office hours", which is precisely equivalent to blocking 9am-2pm as "desk work".
Booking time for jobs in your own calendar is a simple solution. If someone tries to book over the top of it, you just click "propose new time" to your next available slot.
I do get frustrated when my slightly more senior managers just have a month ahead booked out in their calendar, and I just need a 15-minute chat to get approval for something to keep me moving along.
Booking time for jobs in your own calendar is a simple solution. If someone tries to book over the top of it, you just click "propose new time" to your next available slot.
I do get frustrated when my slightly more senior managers just have a month ahead booked out in their calendar, and I just need a 15-minute chat to get approval for something to keep me moving along.
It probably depends on company culture, but I can definitely envision situations where the meeting "request" is less of an actual request and more of a "this meeting is scheduled whether you like it or not".
I agree with the premise, but it depends on your workplace. I struggle with colleagues who don't even both checking if the spot is available.
That’s one of the problems I have with some of the “productivity culture” blogs (and podcasts). They’re great for independents, very small businesses and executives who have that level of control. If I told my boss that I was only available during certain “office hours” to accept meetings, I’d quickly be out of a job.
No, the best that I can do that fits in the work culture is to block out a few “GTD” (actually I call them “GSD/Get Shit Done”)hours at strategic times during the week.
I want to point out that I do attempt Inbox Zero because it’s a method for dealing with a problem that’s within my control but also within “normal” working parameters.
No, the best that I can do that fits in the work culture is to block out a few “GTD” (actually I call them “GSD/Get Shit Done”)hours at strategic times during the week.
I want to point out that I do attempt Inbox Zero because it’s a method for dealing with a problem that’s within my control but also within “normal” working parameters.
> I struggle with colleagues who don't even both checking if the spot is available.
I had the same issue in my last job at a large enterprise. What I found out was that many people actually didn't know how to use that feature.
I had the same issue in my last job at a large enterprise. What I found out was that many people actually didn't know how to use that feature.
I guess you mean "bother".
If so, I do not bother to decline such a meeting, I just do not show up.
If so, I do not bother to decline such a meeting, I just do not show up.
Naive question, coming from an academic.
How common is the phenomenon that the blog is posting about? Where everyone in a company can unilaterally block off a meeting with anyone else?
I'm astonished that anyone would put up with this. Maybe I should count myself lucky.
How common is the phenomenon that the blog is posting about? Where everyone in a company can unilaterally block off a meeting with anyone else?
I'm astonished that anyone would put up with this. Maybe I should count myself lucky.
In my experience at least, it's never been that anyone can truly unilaterally schedule a meeting. Instead, it's that anyone can propose a meeting with anyone else at any time, which people end up feeling obligated to accept for a variety of social and political reasons.
I agree that there is a common tendency for folks to schedule more meetings than would be most efficient, and that there are a variety of reasons why this is the case.
I’m not so sure that having every employee in to set office hours outside of which no one else may invite them to a meeting is the correct solution. I could imagine it being fairly likely that you might end up in a scenario in which this system makes it impossible to schedule meetings with many groups of people.
Meeting time is expensive for both individuals and the company, but some amount of meetings can be worthwhile! Ideally both inviters and invitees attempt to consider as many of the trade-offs involved as possible, and are able to do all of send, receive, accept, and reject, and propose alternatives to invitations as needed.
I agree that there is a common tendency for folks to schedule more meetings than would be most efficient, and that there are a variety of reasons why this is the case.
I’m not so sure that having every employee in to set office hours outside of which no one else may invite them to a meeting is the correct solution. I could imagine it being fairly likely that you might end up in a scenario in which this system makes it impossible to schedule meetings with many groups of people.
Meeting time is expensive for both individuals and the company, but some amount of meetings can be worthwhile! Ideally both inviters and invitees attempt to consider as many of the trade-offs involved as possible, and are able to do all of send, receive, accept, and reject, and propose alternatives to invitations as needed.
Tools like Calendly do a reasonably good job of making an allowlist out of your calendar. Put them in your email sig and generally teach people to use it.
I wonder how to make that work in a larger organization where people would just see your Outlook calendar in the scheduling assistant. Does Calendly or any product block that off for you?
Calendly has Calendar integration so it checks your {Outlook,Google} calendar for free times (within the office hours specified in Calendly), and also adds an event to the configured {Outlook,Google} calendar to avoid double-booking.
[deleted]
But what of the middle managers who depend on filling their calendars back to back with meetings so they can pretend their job isn’t meaningless.
Submitted here yesterday, but it was removed very quickly, presumably because it originally said "blacklist" and "whitelist": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24043175
EDIT: Looks like this post is marked as [flagged] now.
EDIT: Looks like this post is marked as [flagged] now.
That post doesn’t seem to be removed though?
Just lacks upvotes to be on the front page.
Just lacks upvotes to be on the front page.
This site gives me such major deja vu that I’m genuinely beginning to question my memory seeing shit like this.
I swear I read this exact same thread yesterday about the repost, I swear I read this exact same fucking comment yesterday but it says coolspot posted it 10 minutes ago.
Am I going insane?
I swear I read this exact same thread yesterday about the repost, I swear I read this exact same fucking comment yesterday but it says coolspot posted it 10 minutes ago.
Am I going insane?
Sorry - you're running into the glitch in the Matrix which is HN timestamp relativization on re-upped threads. More explanation at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614. It leads to occasional confusion, but we haven't figured out a better way, and not doing it leads to worse confusion.
You can always see the original timestamp via URLs other than the front page and the /item page. For example https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mcrittenden shows the comment you were talking about as "1 day ago", and https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=critter.blog (which you can get at by clicking on the domain in the title) shows the same for the submission.
You can always see the original timestamp via URLs other than the front page and the /item page. For example https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mcrittenden shows the comment you were talking about as "1 day ago", and https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=critter.blog (which you can get at by clicking on the domain in the title) shows the same for the submission.
Um, yeah, author here, and I'm not sure what is going on. I posted this yesterday (over 24h ago) but now it says it was posted 3 hours ago.
Maybe a moderator renewed it or something? Is that possible?
Maybe a moderator renewed it or something? Is that possible?
> Maybe a moderator renewed it or something? Is that possible?
Yes, but I would have expected that they sent you an email about that. (the post ID in the url is also clearly out of order compared to other submissions from today - which is exactly what happens if mods bump it)
Yes, but I would have expected that they sent you an email about that. (the post ID in the url is also clearly out of order compared to other submissions from today - which is exactly what happens if mods bump it)
We don't always send an email, just sometimes. Usually when I happen to think of it.
Now this one has disappeared off the front page too.
I think it's being removed by automod because most of the comments are turning into downvote-heavy low-quality bickering over use of the terms allowlist/denylist vs whitelist/blacklist. Automod tends to disfavor posts with comment sections that turn into bickering (which is roughly approximated by ratio of downvotes to upvotes).
EDIT: Aaaaand now it's flagged. I don't know it automod does that too, or if that's explicitly a user thing, or even a mod thing. I wonder if users who don't like the terms are flagging it?
I think it's being removed by automod because most of the comments are turning into downvote-heavy low-quality bickering over use of the terms allowlist/denylist vs whitelist/blacklist. Automod tends to disfavor posts with comment sections that turn into bickering (which is roughly approximated by ratio of downvotes to upvotes).
EDIT: Aaaaand now it's flagged. I don't know it automod does that too, or if that's explicitly a user thing, or even a mod thing. I wonder if users who don't like the terms are flagging it?
>users who don't like the terms are flagging it?
Charitably, it's been flagged by users who don't like the terms and/or don't like the quality of the discussion of the terms. I think it's a shame that so many simple disagreements have to be so bitterly socio-political.
Charitably, it's been flagged by users who don't like the terms and/or don't like the quality of the discussion of the terms. I think it's a shame that so many simple disagreements have to be so bitterly socio-political.
Yeah, that too. I just wish we could get past the transitional reactionary phase already, wherein the mere use of these new phrases triggers endless arguments, and people (who clearly know what the terms mean) can just get over it and let them pass without content.
Maybe the mods should step in with some guidance. They already don't like extended discussions of politics because it devolves into flame wars too easily; maybe they should enforce the same on discussions of whitelist/blacklist/master/slave/etc terminology? Like, just let people use the new terms, no arguing about it?
Maybe the mods should step in with some guidance. They already don't like extended discussions of politics because it devolves into flame wars too easily; maybe they should enforce the same on discussions of whitelist/blacklist/master/slave/etc terminology? Like, just let people use the new terms, no arguing about it?
I think that rule would be pretty widely considered unacceptable, since it would also prohibit comments like "hey, you should use 'allowlist' rather than 'whitelist'". It's not an issue that many people are willing to accept neutrality on these days.
Hacker News is the last place I would expect that to happen. Maybe it was removed for some other readon.
To be clear, I mean that my guess is that it was auto-removed because it got flagged by users for that reason.
Something that shouldn’t have happened here IMO.
That's quite a "presumably".
What's an allowlist?
An alternative term for a wh*telist
Whitelist. You can spell it out here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why is the asterisk (*) symbol often used in the middle of words these days? I didn't get the memo when this trend started.
The asterisk is often used to mince profane words, and I guess wh* te and bl* ck are profane now... Or at least that's what the parent comment is implying. (Personally I disagree.)
People have been spelling brainfuck as brainf*ck, or similar, since at least 2001 (the earliest date my lazy-a$s search yielded)
It's just a censor.
The opposite of a block list: a lost of things that are allowed.
A poor replacement for the industry standard term whitelist.
There are numerous "industry standard" terms including hot/cold, black/white, allow/deny, positive/negative etc.
The generalized concept that white=good,black=bad is something that can easily disappear from all "industry" with more precise terms.
In the case of this topic, allow/deny is a much better set of names.
The generalized concept that white=good,black=bad is something that can easily disappear from all "industry" with more precise terms.
In the case of this topic, allow/deny is a much better set of names.
I think allowlist and denylist are better alternatives to whitelist and blacklist. Allow and Deny are more literally what this is about. White and Black are just old metaphors that aren’t clear they are just familiar.
Whitelist and Blacklist don’t really have racists backgrounds but it they are part of a longstanding cultural bias that equates white=good and black=bad. Subverting those biases seems like a good idea.
Whitelist and Blacklist don’t really have racists backgrounds but it they are part of a longstanding cultural bias that equates white=good and black=bad. Subverting those biases seems like a good idea.
Why did they change the whitelist blacklist thing. Isn't that a bit silly to be pedantic about?
If it's silly to be pedantic about it, isn't it also silly to leave a comment discussing a change to it?
chobanga(1)
Can someone explain to me why this change is a thing?
Are people implicating it has something to do with race? Because it don't see the connection.
Are people implicating it has something to do with race? Because it don't see the connection.
Yes it's a thing because of the implied meaning of white=good, black=bad.
I don't think giving words more power to express hate, by making them taboo, benefits anyone. But a part of the internet has agreed on exactly that.
I don't think giving words more power to express hate, by making them taboo, benefits anyone. But a part of the internet has agreed on exactly that.
I'm not sure if it's about making them taboo. We're not "banning" the words white and black. We're not saying you can't use those words to describe color for instance (e.g. "the wall is white", "this car is black"). The way I tend to see it is that we reached a level of sensitivity that leads us to be more explicit about our choice of words. I would call myself somewhat socially progressive but now I have to admin that I've never questioned the terms whitelist and blacklist. Now that I do, it seems obvious to me that "black" and "white" prefixes aren't good terms to use in the first place. How is someone even supposed to know which one is "allow" and which one is "deny". "Allowlist" and "Denylist" or something like that would be way more descriptive AND would simply be more sensitive to what's going on in the world. Technology doesn't exist in a vacuum, we can't ignore social issues.
I can live with blocklist but what one-syllable word can I use for "allow?"
Hmm, grantlist, passlist. Nothing perfect springs to mind.
Making certain uses of some words a taboo is exactly what's happening. Which, in some cases, just seems arbitrary and not related to a societal problem, let alone its solution. It's a good thing we are becoming more sensitive to these topics, and that they are beginning to get the attention to hopefully bring meaningful change. However, as is the case with any sufficiently big movement, subgroups will form that have their own interpretation of the goal, and some of those will end up being detrimental to the overall cause. For example, the few individuals rioting during the recent protests hurt the entire movement one way or another. This comparison is to be taken with a grain of salt, but my impression has been that the whole debate on certain words is somewhat similar to that, in much lesser form of course. There is language that needs changing. There is also language that I would argue doesn't, and arbitrarily creating artificial sensitivity just dilutes the original, important message.
When I hear the word camp, I don't immediately think of labour camps, the same way I don't think of race when I hear the word blacklist. That's not the case for everyone, so it does need addressing. What it boils down to is the question when and why it was concluded that deprecating those neutral uses was the better solution over deprecating their negative connotations. It mostly just seems counter-intuitive to me for the reason stated in my previous comment.
When I hear the word camp, I don't immediately think of labour camps, the same way I don't think of race when I hear the word blacklist. That's not the case for everyone, so it does need addressing. What it boils down to is the question when and why it was concluded that deprecating those neutral uses was the better solution over deprecating their negative connotations. It mostly just seems counter-intuitive to me for the reason stated in my previous comment.
Except how is a blacklist "bad" and a whitelist "good" ? I've never thought of it this way; I dont think many people have but I could he wrong.
If there was some race related history to the words I could understand, but I thought they were called this way purely because the colours black and white are opposites, like how a blacklist is the opposite to a whitelist and vice versa.
If there was some race related history to the words I could understand, but I thought they were called this way purely because the colours black and white are opposites, like how a blacklist is the opposite to a whitelist and vice versa.
I have always thought the analogizing of white to “good” and black to “bad” comes directly from absence of light (dark; black) or the presence of light (bright; white).
Because we are not nocturnal creatures, darkness == scary and daytime == security so therefore black == bad and white == good.
I can see how one who is hyper-focused on race might see that as problematic, but to me, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
Because we are not nocturnal creatures, darkness == scary and daytime == security so therefore black == bad and white == good.
I can see how one who is hyper-focused on race might see that as problematic, but to me, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
I agree; this is how I've understood the terms for as long as I've been aware of and used them.
The lack of light = black, and light which includes literally all colours = white.
When light is "blocked" from passing, black. When light is "allowed" to pass, white.
I look forward to seeing what other concepts can be mutated to make a point on unrelated topics.
The lack of light = black, and light which includes literally all colours = white.
When light is "blocked" from passing, black. When light is "allowed" to pass, white.
I look forward to seeing what other concepts can be mutated to make a point on unrelated topics.
It's a thing because there's a pandemic and another Black guy was murdered by police -- George Floyd. Because of the pandemic, people reacted uncharacteristically and raised hell instead of our usual reaction of sort of shrugging and making excuses.
So a lot of different things are being impacted by our uncharacteristic willingness to take action about systemic racism, including use of language.
So a lot of different things are being impacted by our uncharacteristic willingness to take action about systemic racism, including use of language.
trefil(1)
barbacoa(1)
I don't think this system can work if everyone can just arbitrarily choose which hours to leave open, on a team distributed across time zones. There would have to be some kind of rules to ensure sufficient overlap. That means some people might not get the absolutely perfect schedule they wanted, but too bad. Be adults. Better for everyone to make some accommodation than to force everyone in the minority time zone to work majority-time-zone hours - which is basically what I see happening to everyone in my situation. We don't need to make that worse.