On 11/27/2013 08:28 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Erik Moeller <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > A bit dated, but still an interesting read: > http://dt.deviantart.com/journal/We-re-all-remote-220038037 > > > I have to say, I don't think everyone being remote is an ideal working > environment to copy. We accept remote employees because sometimes you > need to get talented people. But that doesn't make it the best working > situation. There are huge benefits to having people co-located, and we > should be striving for co-located teams where ever possible.
I think our own projects show that both fully co-located and fully remote models can work well if you plan for them accordingly. The most serious problems rise when a team is half-way co-located and remote. It is also worth noting that teams aiming to lead successful open source projects (inclusive, with many stakeholders, and an active developer community) tend to be more remote than co-located. The remote aspect usually leads to better public documentation, more public discussions and decisions, and an easier path for new contributors--who, by definition, are always remote. It is too easy for fully co-located teams to get too involved in an internal inertia, local documentation, ad-hoc decisions and, in general, a thicker wall separating them from the outside. -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
