Closed iamjessklein closed 8 years ago
would it be okay to have the @ replies at the end of the message, that way the important info is in the beginning and readable if there were like 1000 names after?
The bot could also individually DM people status messages, instead of posting them in the channel. Or both.
Since we are promoting openness (with the process) I think that it should @ reply at the end of the message. +1 @jennschiffer
i'd prefer keeping in the channel where the pom is running. that way we know what pom the warning is for - in case a user is running multiple poms in different channels
What if the bot messaged each user in a DM with the reason they specified? Then instead of a general:
Pombot warning - you have 5 minutes left in this pom @cowboy @jennschiffer @iamjessklein
We each might see an individual message in DM like:
Pombot Warning - you have 5 minutes left to add logged out views into the deck for tomorrow
Or:
Pombot Warning - you have 5 minutes left to do something something
It could also still message the channel with a general warning, like it does now.
Also, is it likely that people will participate in multiple simultaneous timers?
🕓 that multiple timers question is interesting. I think that it's safe to assume that if they are publicly pomming they will be doing it together.
After a pom has been started, it would be really great if users were alerted by name about messages. This will help users to get notified with reminders about 5 mins left in the pom and when the pom concludes.
Example:
Pam and Jess declare that they will do a pom:
Jess starts the pom
^ this message should say "....@ jess and @ pam have 25 minutes left!"
All participants are warned that they have 5 mins left in the pom
^ this message should say ".... @ jess and @ pam have 5 minutes..."
All participants are notified that the pom has ended.
^ this message should say " .... @ jess @ pam : your 🍅 is complete
cc/ @jennschiffer @cowboy @tkellen