I have been on remote teams with 2 different types of coordination. Meeting coordinated, which is usually centered around 1 or 2 weekly meetings when status up

I have been on remote teams with 2 different types of coordination. Meeting coordinated, which is usually centered around 1 or 2 weekly meetings when status updates and some amount of discussion of planning occurs. This model works best when a large portion of the team is on the same timezone or there is a physical office somewhere but isn't ideal for nomads or people that are permanently located in an inconvenient timezone. These meetings often come at a very high cost so if someone isn't getting value out of them then they don't feel great about them usually. The other is async/adhoc coordinated that mostly does synchronisation and planning through async means like chat, email and issue tracking. This I found works way better for travellers/nomads and people that generally don't need or want structured meetings. Especially if you mostly work on long tasks and the vast majority of your updates are "still doing the thing". If you couple this with adhoc/on-demand meetings where you grab small portions of the team to talk about smaller scoped things I find it works really well. Managers (well less good ones) in particular are less of a fan of this model because instead of having well defined sync points they need to be continually on top of how things are changing. Both have trade-offs, I find the second one works way better but is much rarer. I experienced my most productive time as an engineer working under such a model.