[JamyDev]

Didn't see anyone top level mention it, but:

Disadvantages -> Timezones

Timezones make scheduling team meetings hard, and if your organization ever becomes big enough to warrant a physical office people far away will start working late hours to keep up with the main office.

YMMV, but it's 3 AM here in Berlin and until 10 minutes ago I was still actively working.

[rmgraham]

I've been full-time remote for just shy of 5 years and timezones is definitely an issue. Up to 4 hour difference is sustainable indefinitely, 8 hours can be with the right people (doing split days is great for this), but beyond 8 hours and the amount of effort required for synchronous communication (video calls) causes it to not happen and the team loses cohesion.

You need the synchronous communication to have non-work conversations, and you need those non-work conversations to develop and maintain the relationships required (trust, rapport, etc.) for remote work.

> if your organization ever becomes big enough to warrant a physical office

...then you probably don't have enough buy-in to be a fully remote company and that is far harder to work around than timezones.

[spraak]

> YMMV, but it's 3 AM here in Berlin and until 10 minutes ago I was still actively working.

Sounds like an unhealthy implementation. I've worked 12 hours apart from a main office for 3 years and never worked past my local business hours.

[m1keil]

Depends on the team. In Operations, timezone differences can be quite good since it allows you "follow the sun" type of on-call shifts.

[billysielu]

Not having meetings sounds like a benefit to me.

[pmlnr]

> scheduling team meetings

See written & async first communication. Mailing lists work for things like linux kernel development.