On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:02 AM, <PeteCRuth@...
> Picky, picky, picky! I was, of course, alluding to the possibility of working in a distributed environment, with activities taking place in international time, across several time zones. Come to think of it, though, you've got a point: when it's beer time in Germany, it's beer time everywhere. Even California!
In my experience a distributed team has less time to coordinate than a
co-located team. For example, my company is distributed between the
Northeast US and Southern California. The time difference is only
three hours, but that means that:
1) When the East Coast people get in (0900 EDT == 0600 PDT) the West
Coast people are asleep or just beginning their commute.
2) When the West Coast people get in (0900 PDT == 1200 EDT) the East
Coast people are on their way to lunch.
3) When the West Coast people are at lunch (1200 PDT == 1500 EDT) the
East Coast people are wrapping up for the day (working and not wanting
to be interrupted... in meetings... etc.)
4) When the West Coast people are wrapping up (1500 PDT == 1800 EDT)
the East Coast people are either already gone for the day, or really,
really, ready to be.
The net result is that there are at most three or four hours that are
mutually convenient for the distributed team, and the timing always
This can't be any better for a team that is distributed across
multiple time zones. At the extreme, it means that people are working
really hard to be available to each other at the expense of personal
and family time.
getting back to the original point:
* On a collocated team the standup is about 15 / (8 * 60) = 3.125% --
much more than you suggested.
* On a distributed team the overlapping time is less and the
coordination costs are higher. So, the numbers probably vary a bit,
but I suggest they are @ 5-10% or more.