[dwaltrip]

Why is the assumption that someone working 3-4 days a week can't take on a large project or won't be dedicated? That seems completely non-obvious to me. Sure a project might take a week longer, but it also might not. A lot of my best work comes after extended periods of letting my subconscious mull things over.

One possible compromise I could imagine is something like three 9 hour days with an hour of emailing/communication/brainstorming the other two days. And maybe once every month or two they come to work an extra half day for an important meeting.

With a 30-50% pay cut, this setup will be positively affecting the burn rate/payroll expenses and it could easily be a better investment than the standard work arrangement. Obviously not every potential team member would be the right fit for this, but I think many would.

[Retra]

>Why is the assumption that someone working 3-4 days a week can't take on a large project or won't be dedicated?

This is because those huge projects tend to require a high degree of coordination and planning, and that means the people involved need to be available to the rest of the team. And if they're not available, they aren't involved.

[dwaltrip]

This is a starkly false dichotomy. Less that 40 hours a week does not mean "not available".

[kmike84]

It may be true for "less than 40 hours", but 3-4 days a week literally means they are not available 1-2 days a week, right?

[dwaltrip]

In my above post, I mentioned an idea where they work for an hour on those 1-2 days, focusing on communication/team stuff.

[kmike84]

makes sense!