I'm pretty sure that if you write down a list of inconveniencing things, this cannot be anywhere but at the bottom. The fact that some person will cry and shout that it is very very inconvenient seems to just confirm this person is acting like a toddler.
But in fact you are right, "mildly inconvenient" may not be the best way to put it, it could have been "because otherwise you are as inconvenienced as they are if they follow your wish". After all, that is my point: I don't say it's not inconvenient for you, I'm just asking why should a group prefer the solution where A is inconvenienced and B not inconvenienced over a solution where B is inconvenienced and A not inconvenienced.
I think one is more inconvenienced than the other. If someone doesn't answer your question immediately, search harder. The answer is out there somewhere.
I think it doesn't really have much to do with what anyone wants. It's funny that I am inclined to think OP would be annoying, but this comment almost is doing the opposite of what you intended and swaying me the opposite way. Knowledge should be shared, and not under a list of very capricious conditions.
But, I get it, that's how you work and we've all got our things. I've never worked at an office, and I'm just realizing that all the discussions here could be solved by simply having a guy like OP paired with a guy who enjoys sharing their knowledge and unblocking these problems ASAP. A people person, which I get coders tend not to be. A guy whose flow is that, not just being an island out of a krazam sketch.
Hm, one could as legitimately argue: if the person who has the knowledge FAILED to document it properly and give it to the person who needs it. Then the person who has the knowledge is the one who deserve to have their flow disrupted instead of the person who notice they haven't done their work. Why should the person who demands the knowledge pays for the other person failure?
But more importantly, a grown-up would say: the two persons are collaborating, they are not fighting each other. The person who has knowledge is a grown-up, they will want the work to progress correctly and they will want to see their colleague succeed professionally and socially. The person who needs the knowledge is a grown-up, they will not ask over and over again when they see it disturbs the person who has the knowledge (and no one here is against that, obviously).
That's a sad way of seeing professional relationship, but also not a very smart way too: in real life, your own position is biased: when Mr X asks Mr Y a question, it is because Mr X truly believe it's a legitimate question. But maybe Mr Y has written the doc somewhere and Mr X missed it (which can and will happen). In which case, Mr Y will think Mr X is "wrong". But how Mr X can be sure he is not "wrong": Mr X does not know what he does not know. Or maybe Mr Y has written the doc, but badly. In which case, Mr Y will incorrectly think Mr X is "wrong". Or maybe ...
In short: grown-ups understand that communication is messy and that "counting points" is just ridiculous, inefficient and just something that a person who has poor understanding of the reality will think is fine.
> if the person who has the knowledge FAILED to document it properly and give it to the person who needs it. Then the person who has the knowledge is the one who deserve to have their flow disrupted instead of the person who notice they haven't done their work
Hard agree!
> But more importantly, a grown-up would say: the two persons are collaborating, they are not fighting each other. The person who has knowledge is a grown-up, they will want the work to progress correctly and they will want to see their colleague succeed professionally and socially. The person who needs the knowledge is a grown-up, they will not ask over and over again when they see it disturbs the person who has the knowledge (and no one here is against that, obviously).
Hard agree!
> In short: grown-ups understand that communication is messy and that "counting points" is just ridiculous, inefficient
Agreed. However, as engineers, if we see communication within the team being messy, you also need to judge is that okay, or could we improve it, by setting some ground rules or improving some process or maybe having more dedicated sessions for creating a good shared understanding. OP's thread, it felt to me, thought that messiness in communication was solvable only by being on-prem and able to ask quick questions, while I am convinced it can be solved far more elegantly and with less overall effort with a good, focused onboarding experience and even (or especially) in remote settings.
Judging by GP comment, they sound like they are heavily inconvenienced. Am I reading it wrong?