[westurner]

Yes, but so is which is best for which situation still the question?

Presuming that information asymmetry will hold over time is a bad assumption, regardless of cost of information security controls.

Why have these new collaborative innovative services succeeded where NNTP and > > indented, text-wrapped email forwards for new onboards have not?

Instead of Chat or IM, hopefully working on Issues with checkbox Tasks and Edges; and Pull Requests composed of Commits, Comments, and Code Reviews; with conditional Branch modification rules; will produce Products: deliverables of value to the customer, per the schema:Organization's Mission.

What style of communication is appropriate for a team in which phase of development, regardless of communications channel?

[doctor_eval]

> Why have these new collaborative innovative services succeeded where NNTP and > > indented, text-wrapped email forwards for new onboards have not?

The new tools we have at our disposal are amazing. Of course they are better. But they are just tools. They don’t solve any problems relating to interpersonal communication any more than a hammer solves building a house.

> What style of communication is appropriate for a team in which phase of development, regardless of communications channel?

It’s the job of a manager to work that out. There is no formula. It’s not even possible to write one down. That’s the point.

[westurner]

Well, our societies value these communication businesses as among the most valuable corporations on Earth, so I think that there's probably some value in the tools that people suffer ads on to get for free.

"Traits of good remote leaders" (2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24432088 :

"From Comfort Zone to Performance Management" (2009) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C43&q=%E2... :

> "Table 4 – Correlation of Development Phases, Coping Stages and Comfort Zone transitions and the Performance Model" in "From Comfort Zone to Performance Management" White (2008) tabularly correlates the Tuckman group development phases (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning) with the Carnall coping cycle (Denial, Defense, Discarding, Adaptation, Internalization) and Comfort Zone Theory (First Performance Level, Transition Zone, Second Performance Level), and the White-Fairhurst TPR model (Transforming, Performing, Reforming). The ScholarlyArticle also suggests management styles for each stage (Commanding, Cooperative, Motivational, Directive, Collaborative); and suggests that team performance is described by chained power curves of re-progression through these stages.