[gregkerzhner]

Ultimately, I file (mandatory, full time) pairing in the same category as mandatory in-office work, meant to encourage brilliance from random water cooler interactions.

In a perfect world, is a fully engaged in-office employee better than a remote one? I’d say probably yes. In the real world, is a disgruntled, commute tired employee better than a happy remote one? Unknown.

Same with paring. If your team is full of perfectly interchangeable humans drinking the same cool aid, then pairing sounds great. But real humans don’t work like that, and for every person who is boosted by pairing there may be another who is held back by it.

In the end, it’s likely best to allow employees to self select the mode of work which works best for them (location, pairing amount, computer choice) so that they are happy and productive. Any kind of top down mandatory policy on those choices will inevitably be worse than each person’s preferred choice.

[whynotminot]

> Ultimately, I file (mandatory, full time) pairing in the same category as mandatory in-office work

I don’t really disagree with this categorization. And there’s a lot of companies that view it as core to their success and culture to have an in person work force.

I may disagree, and I may work elsewhere that suits me better!

That’s sort of why this digression on denying a company the ability to set their own development practices is strange to me. There’s a plethora of options for the work force. Go where you’re in alignment, don’t force bad alignment on the company!