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.

> 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.

> Unfortunately, the more structured, proactive alternatives cost a lot more of my time and effort, so it's all around less effective.

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.

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.

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).

I think you’re underselling the impact of the prerequisite culture change, because very few companies are remote-first or even know what a good remote-first strategy looks like.

If a company already has a solid and effective remote culture, great! But this is pretty rare, and can’t be considered a general case. Those companies are also made of people who fit the mold of that remote culture, and I question the merit of generalizing their success to a broader workforce made up of people who weren’t pre-selected for their compatibility.

And to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t think the investment is worthwhile; just necessary and not trivial.

> "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort".

We can agree to disagree here, but I just find this to be a rather odd conclusion. I’m not trying to split hairs, but think that “just change the culture” hand waves away a massive undertaking for most orgs, and it’s better to address this head-on than pretend it doesn’t exist.

Requesting for people to communicate more in group chats instead of direct messages takes 5 seconds.

Scheduling regular 1:1s with juniors keeps a tight feedback loop. Schedule it once every x weeks and there you go.

i just did that to my team and not only our productivity got better, but now everyone knows what everybody is doing (my team is brand new, and the company has this culture where everything is DMd instead of being sent into channels).

Requesting something and something actually happening are two very different things.

There is also a meaningful difference between an in-person group chat and a group chat that will remain visible to the whole team for months or years to come.

This request becomes far more than just changing the medium, and requires everyone involved to adjust to the idea that everything they ask can be later analyzed without the context of the moment, and this has a chilling effect on the kinds of things that people are willing to ask. This in turn fundamentally changes the dynamic into something that doesn’t really replace the original junior/senior relationship effectively.

Accomplishing what the parent comment is talking about requires far more than “please use the group chat”.

i.e., I don't have the respect of the people that are working for me.

I never had issues with people making sure chat remained in public channels.

> There is also a meaningful difference between an in-person group chat and a group chat that will remain visible to the whole team for months or years to come.

One can be referenced later with a simple text search.

The other could have been an email. And will probably end up with people forgetting what exactly was said.

> requires everyone involved to adjust to the idea that everything they ask can be later analyzed without the context of the moment, and this has a chilling effect on the kinds of things that people are willing to ask.

i.e., I work at a toxic company with toxic management.

Because those same people were speaking up regularly during in-person meetings and weren't being judged there.

Also, let's forget about video/audio.

> Accomplishing what the parent comment is talking about requires far more than “please use the group chat.”

Sure. It requires effort. No more so than what was required before. The difference? We blindly accepted what came before as the way things were.

Since there's far less lawyers on this site than devs (naturally), I'll chime in with my .02c. Face to face is king. Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mom, dog, or the news saying when you wake up tomorrow morning. And you'd be surprised the stuff that people will put into writing, even after repeated notice. Ever work in healthcare and have to deal with HIPAA? It's insane how flippantly I've seen patient info shared, like it's not the first thing drilled into you. It doesn't matter if you are Jesus reincarnate, I'm sure you have said some things you wouldn't want to be read out in court.

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?

"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.

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"?

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.