Alert system (pagerduty): 5 minutes (NOT normally used)
“Instant” message (slack): 2 hours
Email: 36 hours
Maybe that’s too much for you. But knowing I can get both get a response from anyone within 2 hours, but don’t have to respond in less than 2 hours would make me very happy.
If there are remote members, I usually respond to them on IM and try to ignore everyone else. This is to prevent colocated team members from having an advantage as I allow them to walk to my cube. I've toyed with having a requirement from them that if remote team members IM me, then they have to pick up a headset and talk live (similar to being interrupted in person). I haven't tried it yet.
Email in 36 hours is excessive for me - I think by the end of day is good for me.
Clearly different people have different preferences. My focus is to relieve the burden of always checking/being available. It prevents deep focus. I think this aligns with the author of the submission.
[1] Note that this is for IM in general. I've never used Slack - I've heard Slack is more than just IM so perhaps I would find a good use for it.
> a quick check for urgent issues in the morning
> up to a 15 minute session before lunch
> a quick check for urgent issues ten minutes before finishing work
I've said it often enough on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13362603
This is why in my interview I specified something like "Morning, after lunch, and before I head home".
Elsewhere:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21278969
I've told two of my bosses while being interviewed: Assume I'll check email only 3 times a day. Is that workable?
The response to that comment is amusing:
Sorry, but your inability to interact with your co-workers makes you a difficult person to employ. A ton of folks don't need this kind of special treatment.
(Likely he was responding to the other content in my comment, but in the spirit of this submission, I'd bet the author agrees more with my sentiment).