[justinlaster]

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm of the opinion these days that if you can't communicate effectively and proficiently over text, you're in the wrong field; at the very least I'm going to question how much you are "with it."

There is nothing stopping a completely remote company from having "jam" sessions between developers. Is there any solid evidence that working in an office together yields a better work product? We see plenty examples of products that are built by completely remote organizations, and no one has ever pointed to them and gone "man, if only they worked in a face to face situation this would be so much better!"

[camhenlin]

I work remote and do several "jam sessions" a week with other developers on my team, and I think it's even better than in person sessions. We generally have one person "drive" and share their screen over a google hangout, and the other developers, point out issues, ideas, etc just as if we were sitting in front of a projector together. The best part (imo) is each developer gets to be in their own comfort zone, whether that's at a park, their basement, coworking space, or anything in between. Wouldn't have it any other way.

[npsimons]

> In fact, I'm of the opinion these days that if you can't communicate effectively and proficiently over text, you're in the wrong field

Considering that the Linux kernel was developed 90% on a mailing list, I think it puts the lie to "face time is required for development."

[AckSyn]

Only anecdotally. My initial hiring is for three months in the office minimum. That's for acclimation of the kind of workflow/procedural stuff they should learn and general SOP for the company. After that, we offer working from home/remote on a per person consideration.

Some make the cut, other's can't handle it.

[TheRealDunkirk]

I agree with this from both sides. As someone who's worked from home for many years for 2 different employers, I want to be in the office for a few-to-six months to get the lay of the land before spending most of the time at home. And I like the weekly meeting with the whole team, and the occasional 5-minute trip to the office for an ad-hoc meeting, to stay connected.

We technical types can presume that technology runs the world, but, as much as it pains me to admit it, myself, it doesn't. People -- personal interactions -- still run the world, and always will. Being face-to-face with the people you work with is a fundamentally-necessary part of doing good with for and with them.

But the amount of face-to-face time required to be effective varies WIDELY for different people and projects and types of work. These discussion always devolve into blanket statements and proclamations, but it's a REALLY subjective subject.

[billirvine]

To clarify; I'm referring to smallish startups with less than 15 people. If I were to count the number of times that chance encounters in the kitchen, lounge, common area, etc. resulted in ideas that dramatically improved the product, it's be in the 100's. Creativity needs time to ferment, and a catalyst to clarify.

Large enterprise corporations with dozens of people on the tech team and a rigid process? That's not a creative environment. Startups MUST foster a creative environment.

[justinlaster]

I wasn't talking about large enterprise corporations. I still don't see how you lose "chance encounters" over an online medium, especially when everything is in text and you are constantly just a few characters away from each other. There is more opportunity for other people to chime in, or think about an idea, or share their idea.

Your example seems really, really contrived.