[skewart]

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on what it's like being remote when a team is partially remote - say, 30% are remote - vs when a team is fully remote.

I've never worked remote in either situation, but I'm kind of inclined to think that being remote on a fully remote team is much, much better. I would think that a partially remote team would have a hard time fully committing to using remote work flows and tools, and the remote workers would inevitably always be a little out of the loop. Of course, if you're cool with that, and are happy with something more like a consultant role then maybe that's fine. If you're looking for a bigger or more central role in the org, then you'll have a hard time being remote in a partially remote org. Does that perception seem accurate? Or do I have the wrong impression?

[daspecster]

In my humble experience, I've found that there are two paths that seem to be traversed and work. 1. It doesn't matter how many people work remotely but everyone is committed to participating and communicating through distributed means(chat, email, etc). That usually works pretty well. 2. Depending on the company culture, you'll need to have different amounts of the work force remote to get critical mass of adoption.