20 ms·

> I don't have all my juniors around me, so I can't overhear their conversations, so I can't jump in when they talk themselves into trouble. I can't help people

> I don't have all my juniors around me, so I can't overhear their conversations, so I can't jump in when they talk themselves into trouble. I can't help people debug problems I'm not aware of, and frustrated grumbling often comes a few steps before actively asking for help. I don't have people from other teams around me, so I can't grab them for coffee/lunch and catch up on what they're doing. I used to have a couple of PMs from other teams who regularly came to me for help because their engineers weren't great at talking to non-technical people. There is nothing here that can’t be addressed in a remote setting, you just need different methodologies (tight feedback loops for juniors, public channels for team comms, etc). You may simply have a preference for being around people and using the methodologies you listed here, which is fine enough, but remote doesn’t fundamentally block any of the outcomes you mentioned.

laserlight 3y ago
I've never understood why people think that remote should just work magically, without any effort on their part.
- pdpi 3y ago
  I don't expect it to work magically without effort on my part. What I'm saying is that it's a tradeoff, and that the tradeoff doesn't really work that well for me. I'm simultaneously pretty gregarious and pretty introverted. Having to take the lead and proactively arrange for social interactions is exhausting for me, but being a mostly passive observer and tactically jumping in is much more manageable, and all around a more efficient use of my resources. Work better in a pull- rather than push-based setup, if you will.
  - laserlight 3y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. > Having to take the lead and proactively arrange for social interactions is exhausting for me This is definitely the case for me as well. I've set up regular meetings once, to avoid all kinds of discomfort that arise when doing so every time. Though, I understand that such arrangements may not flow as easy as in-person ones for everyone.
jensensbutton 3y ago
You conveniently left out the part where they address that: > Unfortunately, the more structured, proactive alternatives cost a lot more of my time and effort, so it's all around less effective.
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  chronofar's comment isn't incompatible with that. I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. If you alone are trying to adopt a remote-first strategy I definitely think it will take more of your time and effort, but if your company culture is remote-first I don't think it should.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. Culture change requires time and effort. And without structured guidance shaping the change, progress will not be evenly distributed. I think the harsh reality is that remote-first does inherently take more time and effort, even if some of that is a one time investment. The trouble is that this one time investment is difficult to quantify. I worked remotely for many years prior to the pandemic so I’m not against remote work. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that it comes at no cost. I did find it incredibly important to still get to the office periodically for team bonding and to catch up on the 100 little hallway conversations that can’t happen remotely.
    - ZephyrBlu 3y ago
      Cmon dude, you're twisting words. I agree culture change requires time and effort, but "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". I even said it takes more time and effort if you are adopting it when other people aren't (I.e. unevenly distributed progress like you mention).
      - haswell 3y ago
RestlessMind 3y ago
> you just need different methodologies (tight feedback loops for juniors, public channels for team comms, etc) Can you be more specific? "Public channels for team comms" -> they explicitly addressed that ("frustrated grumbling"). > but remote doesn’t fundamentally block any of the outcomes Remote forces us to change the way we have been operating for decades. Why should we?
- chronofar 3y ago
  > Can you be more specific? "Public channels for team comms" -> they explicitly addressed that ("frustrated grumbling"). "Frustrated grumbling" goes to the tight feedback loops, make sure juniors aren't on their own island for too long without a checkin of some sort (if you want to manage things that way, I could also argue for letting juniors flail a bit in some cases but the person I replied to obviously prefers a more micro approach). Public channels were related to the desire to know what others were working on. Further specifics depend on the dynamics of the team, but the point in there are various relatively easy ways to systematize remote work efficiently. > Remote forces us to change the way we have been operating for decades. Why should we? Why should people be forced to continue operating in ways they find suboptimal for a myriad of reasons (commute, distractions, tethering living location/family/friends to job, etc) just because some are unwilling to adapt even though solutions are readily available? The historical status quo is not often a great place to look for arguments for how things should be.
visarga 3y ago
> There is nothing here that can’t be addressed in a remote setting, you just need different methodologies (tight feedback loops for juniors, public channels for team comms, etc). The debate between remote and in-office communication reminds me about the debates around generative vs human made art. Is text messaging "real communication", is a generated painting "real art"?
- chronofar 3y ago
  Depends on what your purpose is. Of course text message isn't equivalent to a face to face meeting, nor is a face to face meeting over zoom the same as a face to face in person. If the goal of the communication is specific (need requirement X by Y time), text is actually quite probably better (can take time to be concise and clear, use tools catered to the specifics, remove various other subtleties of face to face meetings). If you want to get to know someone or have low specificity communication needs, clearly an in person rendezvous is best.

laserlight 3y ago

I've never understood why people think that remote should just work magically, without any effort on their part.

pdpi 3y ago
I don't expect it to work magically without effort on my part. What I'm saying is that it's a tradeoff, and that the tradeoff doesn't really work that well for me. I'm simultaneously pretty gregarious and pretty introverted. Having to take the lead and proactively arrange for social interactions is exhausting for me, but being a mostly passive observer and tactically jumping in is much more manageable, and all around a more efficient use of my resources. Work better in a pull- rather than push-based setup, if you will.
- laserlight 3y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. > Having to take the lead and proactively arrange for social interactions is exhausting for me This is definitely the case for me as well. I've set up regular meetings once, to avoid all kinds of discomfort that arise when doing so every time. Though, I understand that such arrangements may not flow as easy as in-person ones for everyone.

jensensbutton 3y ago

You conveniently left out the part where they address that: > Unfortunately, the more structured, proactive alternatives cost a lot more of my time and effort, so it's all around less effective.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
chronofar's comment isn't incompatible with that. I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. If you alone are trying to adopt a remote-first strategy I definitely think it will take more of your time and effort, but if your company culture is remote-first I don't think it should.
- haswell 3y ago
  > I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. Culture change requires time and effort. And without structured guidance shaping the change, progress will not be evenly distributed. I think the harsh reality is that remote-first does inherently take more time and effort, even if some of that is a one time investment. The trouble is that this one time investment is difficult to quantify. I worked remotely for many years prior to the pandemic so I’m not against remote work. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that it comes at no cost. I did find it incredibly important to still get to the office periodically for team bonding and to catch up on the 100 little hallway conversations that can’t happen remotely.
  - ZephyrBlu 3y ago
    Cmon dude, you're twisting words. I agree culture change requires time and effort, but "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". I even said it takes more time and effort if you are adopting it when other people aren't (I.e. unevenly distributed progress like you mention).
    - haswell 3y ago

RestlessMind 3y ago

> you just need different methodologies (tight feedback loops for juniors, public channels for team comms, etc) Can you be more specific? "Public channels for team comms" -> they explicitly addressed that ("frustrated grumbling"). > but remote doesn’t fundamentally block any of the outcomes Remote forces us to change the way we have been operating for decades. Why should we?

chronofar 3y ago
> Can you be more specific? "Public channels for team comms" -> they explicitly addressed that ("frustrated grumbling"). "Frustrated grumbling" goes to the tight feedback loops, make sure juniors aren't on their own island for too long without a checkin of some sort (if you want to manage things that way, I could also argue for letting juniors flail a bit in some cases but the person I replied to obviously prefers a more micro approach). Public channels were related to the desire to know what others were working on. Further specifics depend on the dynamics of the team, but the point in there are various relatively easy ways to systematize remote work efficiently. > Remote forces us to change the way we have been operating for decades. Why should we? Why should people be forced to continue operating in ways they find suboptimal for a myriad of reasons (commute, distractions, tethering living location/family/friends to job, etc) just because some are unwilling to adapt even though solutions are readily available? The historical status quo is not often a great place to look for arguments for how things should be.

visarga 3y ago

> There is nothing here that can’t be addressed in a remote setting, you just need different methodologies (tight feedback loops for juniors, public channels for team comms, etc). The debate between remote and in-office communication reminds me about the debates around generative vs human made art. Is text messaging "real communication", is a generated painting "real art"?

chronofar 3y ago
Depends on what your purpose is. Of course text message isn't equivalent to a face to face meeting, nor is a face to face meeting over zoom the same as a face to face in person. If the goal of the communication is specific (need requirement X by Y time), text is actually quite probably better (can take time to be concise and clear, use tools catered to the specifics, remove various other subtleties of face to face meetings). If you want to get to know someone or have low specificity communication needs, clearly an in person rendezvous is best.