Re: Any advice on remote pairing?

Hi Jeff,

I am sure there are counter-examples.

Recruiting the members on the basis that XP will be followed would certain
increase the chance of your outcome (over recruiting purely on the basis of
domain or technical knowledge).

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Langr [email protected]
[extremeprogramming] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I was on a few different distributed teams while at Outpace for about 3
> years. I'm not sure what the overall statistics are with respect to "very
> likely," but we built some very effective teams. Granted, we were all
> senior developers with considerable experience, but most of us had never
> worked together before.
>
> The teams we built were some of the most cohesive--and gratifying--I've
> been on. The pairing was definitely an important part of the team building,
> as were a number of other elements.
>
> We also had considerably higher stability than co-located teams, with
> almost no natural attrition in our first 2 years. (That went out the window
> when the business model proved to be a problem.)
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> Steven Gordon [email protected] [extremeprogramming]
> <[email protected]>
> October 18, 2016 at 10:19 AM via Postbox
> <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=sumlink&utm_campaign=reach>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Distribution is an even worse team-building idea.  So bad an idea that it
> is very likely that the group will effectively never become an team.  So
> bad an idea that it is much more likely that members of the work group will
> leave for better opportunities at inconvenient times.
>
> 
> ------------------------------
>