4 ms·

Granted, I and the people I've described may be a minority. But in my observation and perhaps in staid corporate environments, those who benefit from colocation

Granted, I and the people I've described may be a minority. But in my observation and perhaps in staid corporate environments, those who benefit from colocation tend to be those who need to be herded and hand-held. Those who want and are really able to get shit down, don't mind face to face but are greatly frustrated with pointless and distracting face to face. I too don't know what the numbers are like. I've seen great teams do great things remotely. I've seen great teams do great things co-located. Some of the very best teams I've seen have been co-located. I've also seen some distributed teams fail miserably. I've seen teams co-locate, try remote working, found it didn't work, and co-locate again. And so on. I wish I knew the relative spread of how these things work out for people in different contexts and on different projects. I just find it suspicious that remote work is often presented as all upside since: a) In my experience things are rarely all upside - I always start looking for the downside ;-) b) For whatever reasons a chunk of the dev world tends to be a tad asocial. I know I can be like that. So when something comes up that supports that tendency I wonder if I may be overlooking problems because I would like something to be true.

pasbesoin 14y ago
I think that some in the development world may be less indiscriminately social. I'm plenty social. And I'm not a snob -- I can talk with most anyone, about genuine interests (interests on either party's part, not just my own). Or just sit around drawing spirals in the pancake syrup, for a while. I don't particularly enjoy discussing the latest Hollywood movies and actors ad nauseum, whose existence and which conversation seems to serve significantly to reinforce established, simplistic stereotypes. Especially when the conversation ranges in exactly that direction. I don't enjoy conversations that "get personal", looking for ways to pick apart those not present (behind their back). Or that look for ways to pick apart those present, in active, emotionally manipulative pursuit of a pecking order. On the team I described, we socialized, although people were on average fairly reserved. A good part of that socialization reflected people actually paying attention to and remembering what each other were interested in and doing, and what was going on in their lives. Again, this is just an opinion, but I think some of the "anti-social" attributed to "nerds" and "geeks" is rather an active dis-interest in much of the lowest common denominator of what we consider "social". (Some, not all. I've met plenty of intellectual assholes, too.) Another, personal example: I rather enjoy playing sports. I couldn't care less about watching paid professionals doing it. (This does vary somewhat by sport and event. Also, if anything, I tend to find amateur games more interesting; they bear a closer relationship to my life than the over-produced, over-medicated thing that professional sports has become. Upon reflection, maybe this is a somewhat arrogant or avoidant attitude on my part; I received a lot of abuse as a kid for not being "sports-wise" -- something my father wasn't and never passed on to me.) I've spend too much time and energy on self-doubt, as it is. A lot of places and people have told me that I'm the one who needs to change. They love my work, and how do I do that? But, you know, "We all work in cubes." If you are outperforming your peers (and, not infrequently, management) and otherwise succeeding, then, well, who has the problem? The following may take the interpretation a bit far, but: The bully will always insist that it's "your problem".

pasbesoin 14y ago

I think that some in the development world may be less indiscriminately social. I'm plenty social. And I'm not a snob -- I can talk with most anyone, about genuine interests (interests on either party's part, not just my own). Or just sit around drawing spirals in the pancake syrup, for a while. I don't particularly enjoy discussing the latest Hollywood movies and actors ad nauseum, whose existence and which conversation seems to serve significantly to reinforce established, simplistic stereotypes. Especially when the conversation ranges in exactly that direction. I don't enjoy conversations that "get personal", looking for ways to pick apart those not present (behind their back). Or that look for ways to pick apart those present, in active, emotionally manipulative pursuit of a pecking order. On the team I described, we socialized, although people were on average fairly reserved. A good part of that socialization reflected people actually paying attention to and remembering what each other were interested in and doing, and what was going on in their lives. Again, this is just an opinion, but I think some of the "anti-social" attributed to "nerds" and "geeks" is rather an active dis-interest in much of the lowest common denominator of what we consider "social". (Some, not all. I've met plenty of intellectual assholes, too.) Another, personal example: I rather enjoy playing sports. I couldn't care less about watching paid professionals doing it. (This does vary somewhat by sport and event. Also, if anything, I tend to find amateur games more interesting; they bear a closer relationship to my life than the over-produced, over-medicated thing that professional sports has become. Upon reflection, maybe this is a somewhat arrogant or avoidant attitude on my part; I received a lot of abuse as a kid for not being "sports-wise" -- something my father wasn't and never passed on to me.) I've spend too much time and energy on self-doubt, as it is. A lot of places and people have told me that I'm the one who needs to change. They love my work, and how do I do that? But, you know, "We all work in cubes." If you are outperforming your peers (and, not infrequently, management) and otherwise succeeding, then, well, who has the problem? The following may take the interpretation a bit far, but: The bully will always insist that it's "your problem".