> Can you be more specific? "Public channels for team comms" -> they explicitly addressed that ("frustrated grumbling").
"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.
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?