🌉 SF Tech Week Closing Party: Is SF Really Back? The Remote Work Reckoning

[sales_jenny]

Last night of SF Tech Week. Closing party at the Ferry Building. 500+ founders, investors, engineers.

The vibe: San Francisco is BACK, baby!

The reality: It’s complicated.

The “SF is Back” Evidence

SF Tech Week itself:

• 1,000+ events across the city (Oct 6-12)
• Presented by a16z (vote of confidence from top VC)
• Decentralized format (Hayes Valley, SOMA, Mission, Financial District)
• Energy reminiscent of 2019 (pre-pandemic peak)

Walking around this week, I saw:

• Packed coffee shops (Blue Bottle lines out the door)
• Office buildings with lights on (not empty towers)
• Networking events every night (sometimes 3-4 simultaneously)
• Construction cranes (new housing, office space)
• Tech workers in branded hoodies everywhere

The narrative: “We tried remote. It didn’t work. SF is back.”

The “SF is Over” Counter-Evidence

But then I talked to people at the party:

Founder from Austin: “I’m here for the week. My whole team is remote. Why would I pay SF rent?”

Engineer from NYC: “Great to network in person. But I’m flying home Sunday. Remote work is permanent for me.”

CTO from Miami: “We hire globally. SF talent is overpriced. I can get same quality for 60% of the cost.”

The reality: SF Tech Week doesn’t prove SF is back. It proves SF is a great place to VISIT, not necessarily LIVE.

The Data I Collected (Informal Survey)

At the closing party, I asked 50 people: “Where do you live and where does your team work?”

Results:

Location of attendees:

• 24 live in SF Bay Area (48%)
• 12 visiting from other US cities (24%)
• 8 visiting from international (16%)
• 6 living in Bay Area but not SF proper (12%)

Work arrangement:

• 15 fully in-office (30%)
• 28 hybrid (some days office, some remote) (56%)
• 7 fully remote (14%)

Interpretation:

• SF is a hub for networking and events
• Most teams are NOT fully in-office
• Hybrid is the dominant model (56%)

The Great Debate: Remote vs. In-Person

Two camps at the party:

Camp 1: “Remote Killed Innovation”

Arguments:

• “We tried remote in 2020-2023. It was terrible.”
• “Junior engineers don’t learn without in-person mentorship.”
• “Serendipitous hallway conversations drive innovation.”
• “Remote teams have lower productivity and engagement.”
• “You can’t build culture on Zoom.”

Who believes this:

• Founders of in-person startups
• Investors (especially a16z types)
• Senior engineers who prefer office
• Companies with SF headquarters

Camp 2: “Remote is the Future”

Arguments:

• “We’re global from day 1. Best talent is distributed.”
• “Office rent in SF is $80-120/sq ft. Waste of money.”
• “Remote work enables work-life balance and diversity.”
• “Async communication is better for deep work.”
• “In-person bias favors extroverts and people who live near HQ.”

Who believes this:

• Remote-first startups (GitLab, Zapier model)
• Engineers with families (don’t want SF cost of living)
• Companies outside SF/NYC
• Indie hackers and bootstrappers

The Hybrid Compromise (And Its Problems)

Most companies (56% in my sample) landed on hybrid:

• “Team is required in office 2-3 days/week”
• “Core collaboration hours, rest is flexible”
• “Headquarters in SF, satellite offices in Austin/NYC/Miami”

Sounds reasonable. But problems emerge:

Problem 1: “Hybrid privilege”

• People who live near office get face time with leadership
• Remote workers miss impromptu decisions
• Creates two-tier culture (office vs. remote)

Problem 2: Coordination overhead

• “Let’s meet Tuesday when everyone’s in office”
• Schedules 4 people across 3 time zones
• Takes 2 weeks to find time
• Slower than full remote (async) OR full in-person (daily standups)

Problem 3: Office underutilization

• Company pays for 200-person office
• Tuesday/Wednesday: 120 people show up
• Monday/Friday: 40 people show up
• Expensive real estate sitting empty 60% of the time

One founder: “Hybrid is the worst of both worlds. Commit to one or the other.”

The SF Rent Reality Check

Why people are leaving SF (or not moving back):

SF median 1-bedroom rent: $3,400/month

For comparison:

• Austin: $1,600/month (53% cheaper)
• Miami: $2,400/month (29% cheaper)
• NYC: $4,200/month (24% MORE expensive!)
• Remote (anywhere): $800-1,500/month

For a tech worker making $150K/year:

Living in SF:

• Rent: $3,400/month = $40,800/year
• After-tax income: ~$100K
• Rent as % of after-tax: 41%

Living remote (low cost of living):

• Rent: $1,200/month = $14,400/year
• After-tax income: ~$100K (same salary, remote company)
• Rent as % of after-tax: 14%
• Extra savings: $26,400/year

Over 5 years: $132,000 extra savings from living remote.

That’s a down payment on a house.

The Talent Competition: SF vs. Everywhere Else

SF’s advantages:

• Density of talent (network effects)
• Proximity to investors (easier fundraising)
• Ecosystem (events, meetups, collaboration)
• Brand value (“I work at a SF startup” = credibility)

Competitors’ advantages (Austin, Miami, NYC, remote):

• Lower cost of living (retain more of salary)
• Better quality of life (space, weather, family-friendly)
• Talent pools growing (SF people relocated, not coming back)
• Remote-first culture (global talent, no geographic limits)

The question: Can SF maintain talent advantage when competition is this fierce?

What Companies Are Doing

From conversations at SF Tech Week:

Strategy 1: All-in on SF (30%)

• “Remote failed for us. Everyone back in office.”
• Offering relocation packages to bring people back
• Investing in office culture (free meals, events, perks)
• Risk: Limited talent pool (only people willing to live in SF)

Strategy 2: Remote-first (20%)

• “We hire globally. No headquarters.”
• Save on office costs, invest in remote tooling
• Async culture, documentation-heavy
• Risk: Harder to build culture, onboarding challenges

Strategy 3: Hybrid with SF hub (50%)

• “SF headquarters, but remote-friendly”
• Required office days (2-3/week) for people near SF
• Fully remote for people far from SF
• Risk: Two-tier culture, coordination overhead

My Prediction: Bifurcation

SF will thrive for:

• AI companies (need to be where investors are)
• Early-stage startups (pre-Series A)
• Deep tech (hardware, biotech, need labs/facilities)
• Companies where in-person culture is competitive advantage

Remote/distributed will win for:

• Mature companies (post-Series B)
• Developer tools (engineers prefer remote)
• Global products (need distributed teams)
• Companies optimizing for profitability (not growth-at-all-costs)

SF won’t die. But it won’t return to 2019 dominance either.

The Question I’m Wrestling With

I’m in sales. I can work from anywhere (all customer calls are Zoom anyway).

Should I stay in SF or move remote?

Reasons to stay in SF:

• Networking (SF Tech Week proved value of in-person)
• Career opportunities (easier to switch jobs when everyone’s here)
• Access to investors/partners (meet them at coffee shops)
• “FOMO” (fear of missing out on next big thing)

Reasons to leave SF:

• Cost of living (save $26K/year living elsewhere)
• Quality of life (bigger apartment, backyard, family-friendly)
• Remote is normalized (no longer career limiting)
• SF problems (homelessness, crime, urban decay not fixed)

For now: Staying in SF. But reconsidering every quarter.

Questions for This Community

For people who moved FROM SF:

• Do you regret it?
• What do you miss about SF?
• Did your career suffer?

For people who moved TO SF:

• Was it worth it?
• Are you making connections you couldn’t remotely?

For people who stayed remote:

• How do you handle FOMO?
• How do you network and build relationships?

For hiring managers:

• Remote-first, office-first, or hybrid?
• How do you compete for talent?

SF Tech Week was incredible. But I’m not convinced it proves “SF is back.”

Sources:

• SF Tech Week 2025 (1,000+ events, Oct 6-12)
• Closing party informal survey (50 attendees)
• a16z presenting SF Tech Week
• SF rent data (Zillow, Apartments.com)
• Conversations with founders, engineers, investors throughout the week

[eng_director_luis]

@sales_jenny As an engineering leader managing both remote and in-office teams, I have STRONG opinions on this.

We Tried Fully Remote. It Failed (For Us).

Our journey:

2020-2021: Forced remote (pandemic)

• Everyone working from home
• Survived, but struggled
• Junior engineers floundering
• Communication breakdowns
• “Zoom fatigue” constant complaint

2022-2023: Remote-first (by choice)

• “Let’s embrace remote permanently!”
• Hired globally
• Team went from 20 → 45 people
• Engineering velocity DROPPED (paradoxically)

2024-present: Hybrid (back to office)

• Mandated 3 days/week in office
• Lost 30% of team (refused to return)
• Rehired in SF
• Engineering velocity RECOVERED

Lesson: Remote didn’t work for our team. But might work for others.

Why Remote Failed for Us (Engineering Perspective)

Problem 1: Junior engineer development

In-office:

• Junior overhears senior engineers discussing architecture
• Asks quick questions (“Hey, how does this work?”)
• Gets code reviews in real-time (pair programming)
• Learns by osmosis

Remote:

• Junior works in isolation
• Hesitates to “bother” seniors on Slack
• Code reviews take 24 hours (async communication)
• Learns slowly, makes preventable mistakes

Our data:

• Junior engineers in-office: 6 months to productivity
• Junior engineers remote: 12 months to productivity

2x longer ramp-up time = 2x more expensive

Problem 2: Communication overhead

In-office:

• “Hey team, quick sync?” → 5 people gather at whiteboard, 15 minutes, decision made
• Total time: 15 minutes

Remote:

• “Hey team, quick sync?” → Schedule Zoom for tomorrow (no one has overlap today)
• Tomorrow: 5 people join, screen sharing issues, 45 minute meeting
• Follow-up: 10 Slack messages clarifying what was decided
• Total time: 90 minutes + scheduling overhead

6x slower decision-making

Problem 3: Serendipity and innovation

In-office:

• Overhear conversation about problem
• “Oh, I solved that last week, here’s how…”
• Cross-pollination of ideas

Remote:

• Everyone in their silo
• No accidental knowledge sharing
• Duplicate work (two people solving same problem independently)

Innovation decreased when we went remote

Problem 4: Culture and belonging

In-office:

• Team lunches
• After-work hangouts
• Birthdays and celebrations
• Build friendships, not just work relationships

Remote:

• “Virtual happy hours” (awkward, nobody likes them)
• Transactional relationships (only talk when needed for work)
• High turnover (people don’t feel connected)

Our attrition:

• In-office years (pre-pandemic): 8% annual turnover
• Remote years: 22% annual turnover
• Back to hybrid: 12% annual turnover

Why Remote Works for Other Teams (I’m Not Dogmatic)

I talked to remote-first engineering leaders at SF Tech Week. Here’s what works for them:

Success factor 1: Mature, senior team

• GitLab: Average 8+ years experience
• No junior engineers (hire only senior)
• Self-directed, don’t need hand-holding

Success factor 2: Async-first culture

• Heavily documented (everything written down)
• Low-meeting culture (maybe 5 hours/week)
• Decisions via RFCs, not Zoom calls

Success factor 3: Intentional in-person

• Quarterly offsites (entire team, 1 week together)
• Use in-person for planning and bonding
• Use remote for execution

Success factor 4: Tooling investment

• Spend on remote tools (Notion, Linear, Loom, Miro)
• Async video updates (Loom recordings vs. meetings)
• Virtual whiteboarding (Miro, Figma for collaboration)

For these teams: Remote works great.

For us (less mature team, lots of juniors, fast-moving startup): Remote failed.

The Hybrid Model We Landed On

Our rules:

• 3 days in office (Tue/Wed/Thu): Required for everyone within 50 miles of SF
• 2 days remote (Mon/Fri): Flexible, work from anywhere
• Fully remote exceptions: If >50 miles from SF, fully remote (but must visit quarterly)

Results after 12 months:

Engineering velocity recovered

• Back to pre-pandemic levels
• Faster code reviews, faster decisions

Junior engineers developing faster

• 6-month ramp-up time (vs. 12 months remote)

Culture improved

• Team lunches Tue/Wed/Thu
• In-person bonding
• Lower turnover

Lost 30% of team (refused to return)

• Some moved far from SF during pandemic
• Some have family obligations (can’t commute 3 days/week)
• Some prefer remote lifestyle

Hiring pool smaller

• Can only hire people willing to be in SF 3 days/week
• Competing with remote-first companies for talent

Office costs

• Paying $70K/month for SF office
• Only used 60% of the time (Tue-Thu)

The Talent Competition is REAL

@sales_jenny mentioned:

CTO from Miami: “We hire globally. SF talent is overpriced.”

This is my nightmare.

We lost 3 senior engineers to remote-first companies last quarter:

Engineer 1:

• Offer from SF company (us): $210K, hybrid (3 days office)
• Offer from remote company: $180K, fully remote
• They took remote (even for 14% pay cut)
• Reason: “I moved to Oregon during pandemic. I’m not coming back.”

Engineer 2:

• Offer from us: $190K, hybrid
• Offer from remote company: $195K, fully remote
• They took remote
• Reason: “Same money, better quality of life”

Engineer 3:

• Offer from us: $230K (senior level), hybrid
• Offer from remote company: $200K, fully remote
• They took remote (13% pay cut)
• Reason: “I have kids. Commute 3 days/week is non-negotiable.”

We’re losing talent to remote-first competitors.

The Remote vs. SF Trade-Off (Engineering Talent Perspective)

What engineers want:

1. Compensation
2. Interesting work
3. Work-life balance
4. Career growth
5. Culture and team

SF in-office optimizes:

• #2 (interesting work) - best companies in SF
• #4 (career growth) - network effects, job mobility
• #5 (culture) - in-person team bonding
• #1 (compensation) - high salary, but cost of living eats it
• #3 (work-life balance) - commute, expensive, stressful

Remote optimizes:

• #1 (compensation) - same salary, lower cost of living
• #3 (work-life balance) - no commute, flexible, family time
• #2 (interesting work) - depends on company
• #4 (career growth) - harder to network remotely
• #5 (culture) - weak team bonds remotely

Different engineers optimize different variables.

My Advice for Engineering Leaders

Choose in-office/hybrid IF:

• Early-stage startup (need speed and collaboration)
• Lots of junior engineers (need mentorship)
• Fast-moving (need quick decisions)
• Culture is competitive advantage

Choose remote-first IF:

• Mature product (less need for rapid iteration)
• Senior team (self-directed)
• Global product (need distributed team for time zones)
• Optimizing for profitability (save on office costs)

Don’t choose based on what you WANT. Choose based on what your BUSINESS NEEDS.

The Controversial Take: Remote Work Widens Inequality

Here’s something nobody’s talking about:

Remote work benefits:

• Senior engineers (already have network, can work independently)
• People with families (need flexibility)
• People in low cost-of-living areas (salary arbitrage)

Remote work hurts:

• Junior engineers (miss mentorship and learning)
• Underrepresented groups (less access to informal networks)
• Introverts (don’t self-promote in remote settings)

Example:

Senior engineer working remote:

• Strong network from in-office years
• Self-directed, productive alone
• Gets promoted based on visible output

Junior engineer working remote:

• No network (first job out of bootcamp)
• Struggles to learn independently
• Gets overlooked (not visible to leadership)

After 2 years:

• Senior remote engineer: Thriving, promoted, wealthy
• Junior remote engineer: Stagnating, frustrated, quits tech

Remote work might be widening the experience gap in tech.

Questions for @sales_jenny and Community

You asked:

Should I stay in SF or move remote?

My answer: Depends on career stage.

Early career (0-5 years): Stay in SF. Network effects matter more than cost savings.

Mid career (5-10 years): Your choice. You have network, can succeed remotely.

Late career (10+ years): Remote works great. You’re established.

For hiring managers:

How are you competing with remote-first companies?

We’re losing this battle. Considering going remote-first ourselves, but worried about velocity.

Sources:

• Our company’s 4-year journey (forced remote → remote-first → hybrid)
• Engineering velocity data (internal metrics)
• Attrition data (8% → 22% → 12%)
• Conversations with remote-first CTOs at SF Tech Week
• Exit interviews with 3 engineers who left for remote jobs

[maya_builds]

Indie hacker perspective: I don’t care about the SF vs. remote debate. I care about FREEDOM.

Why I’ll Never Work in an Office Again

I spent 6 years in SF (2016-2022). Worked at 2 startups, both in SOMA.

The SF experience:

• Hour commute each way (BART + walk)
• $3,200/month for 400 sq ft studio
• Open office (100 people, constant noise)
• “Flexible hours” (but everyone judges you if you leave before 7pm)
• Free lunch (but really it’s “stay in office” manipulation)

2022: I quit. Moved to Mexico City. Went indie.

My life now:

• $900/month for 2-bedroom apartment (rooftop terrace!)
• No commute (walk to coffee shop, work there or home)
• Travel whenever (spent last month in Colombia)
• Built 3 products in 2 years (vs. building someone else’s dream)
• Making $8K/month profit (not salary - profit)

I will NEVER go back to office work.

The False Choice: SF vs. Remote Companies

@sales_jenny and @eng_director_luis are debating SF vs. remote EMPLOYMENT.

But there’s a third option: Build your own thing.

Employment (SF or remote):

• You make $150-250K/year
• You build someone else’s product
• Your upside is limited (salary + equity that might be worth $0)
• You need permission to work how you want

Indie hacker:

• You make $0-500K/year (much wider range)
• You build YOUR product
• Your upside is unlimited (own 100%)
• You work however you want (office, remote, coffee shop, beach)

The remote work debate is only relevant if you want to be employed.

The Indie Hacker Advantages of NOT Being in SF

Advantage 1: Cost of living arbitrage

My expenses:

• Rent: $900/month
• Food: $400/month
• Coworking/coffee shops: $200/month
• Travel: $500/month
• Other: $500/month
• Total: $2,500/month

To sustain my lifestyle, I need: $2,500/month × 12 = $30K/year

Compare to SF:

• Rent: $3,400/month
• Food: $800/month
• Transport: $200/month
• Other: $1,000/month
• Total: $5,400/month = $65K/year

I need $35K LESS revenue to sustain same lifestyle.

Translation: My products can be smaller and still succeed.

Advantage 2: Focus and deep work

SF: Constant events, networking, FOMO

• “There’s a founder dinner tonight!”
• “Investor office hours tomorrow!”
• “Hackathon this weekend!”

Mexico City: No tech scene (fewer distractions)

• I work 6 hours/day, deeply focused
• No FOMO (nobody’s doing SF-style events here)
• More output in 6 focused hours than 10 distracted hours in SF

Advantage 3: Global perspective

SF bubble: Everyone’s building AI SaaS for enterprises

• Same ideas, same competitors
• Groupthink

Living internationally: Different problems, different opportunities

• I see what people need in Mexico, South America, Europe
• Built product for remote teams in LatAm (wouldn’t have seen this need in SF)

Advantage 4: Lifestyle quality

SF life:

• Work 10 hours
• Commute 2 hours
• Eat/sleep 12 hours
• Free time: 0 hours

Mexico City life:

• Work 6 hours
• Commute 0 hours
• Eat/sleep 10 hours
• Free time: 8 hours (gym, friends, hobbies, explore city)

I’m healthier, happier, and more creative.

But What About Networking?

Everyone says: “You need to be in SF to network!”

My counter: You need to be in SF to network IF you want to raise VC.

But I don’t want VC.

My “network” is:

• Twitter: 12K followers (built by sharing indie hacker journey)
• This forum: Active participant
• Indie hacker communities: Participate online
• Customers: They don’t care where I live

I have more relevant connections now (remote) than I did in SF.

In SF, my network was:

• People at my company
• People I met at events (many transactional, “what can you do for me?”)

Remote, my network is:

• People who follow my work
• People I’ve helped
• Customers who love my products

Quality > quantity.

The “But SF Has the Best Talent!” Myth

@eng_director_luis mentioned losing engineers to remote-first companies.

From indie hacker perspective: I don’t need to hire.

My products:

• Built and maintained by me (solo)
• Profitable at $8K/month (no team needed)
• Could scale to $30K/month solo
• Past that, I’d build a second product (not hire)

The “you need a team” mindset is employee thinking.

Many indie hackers:

• Solo or tiny teams (2-3 people)
• All remote
• Profitable
• No SF needed

The Real Question: What Do YOU Optimize For?

If you optimize for:

• Maximizing salary → SF (highest salaries)
• Climbing corporate ladder → SF (best companies, network)
• Fundraising for startup → SF (proximity to investors)

If you optimize for:

• Keeping more of your money → Remote (lower cost of living)
• Work-life balance → Remote (no commute, flexibility)
• Location freedom → Remote (work from anywhere)
• Building your own thing → Remote (lower burn rate = more runway)

Different goals = different optimal locations.

My Advice for People Considering Leaving SF

Don’t leave SF if:

• You’re early career (0-3 years) - network effects matter
• You want to raise VC - need to be where investors are
• You love cities and SF specifically - quality of life matters

Leave SF if:

• You’re mid+ career (5+ years) - you have network already
• You’re going indie/freelance - lower burn rate = longer runway
• You want family/space - SF is expensive and cramped
• You’re burned out - change of scenery helps

Test it first:

• Try 1-3 months in another city
• Keep your SF apartment (sublet it)
• See if you miss it
• Decide after experiencing both

The Future: Distributed Everything

@sales_jenny asked:

Is SF really back?

My answer: SF is back for EVENTS, not for LIVING.

The future I see:

• People live where they want (remote, anywhere)
• Travel to SF quarterly for networking/fundraising
• SF becomes event hub, not residential hub

Evidence:

• SF Tech Week: 1,000+ events, many attendees visiting (not living)
• Conferences becoming more important (in-person value, but not daily)
• Remote work normalized (no stigma)

SF will thrive as:

• Event and conference destination
• Fundraising hub (meet investors in person)
• Short-term stays (1 week/quarter)

SF will struggle as:

• Place where tech workers live full-time
• Corporate headquarters (expensive, underutilized)

Questions for This Community

For indie hackers:

• Where do you work from?
• Do you feel disadvantaged being outside SF?
• How do you network remotely?

For people who left SF:

• Any regrets?
• What do you miss?
• Would you go back?

For people considering going indie:

• What’s holding you back?
• Is cost of living a factor?

I’m living proof you don’t need SF to succeed in tech.

Sources:

• My 6 years in SF (2016-2022)
• 2 years as indie hacker in Mexico City (2022-2024)
• My products and revenue data
• Indie hacker community conversations (Indie Hackers, Twitter, forums)

[cto_michelle]

CTO perspective: The remote vs. SF debate is really about BUSINESS STRATEGY, not lifestyle preference.

Our Company’s Evolution: SF → Distributed → Hybrid

2018-2020: SF-centric (pre-pandemic)

• HQ in SOMA, 80 employees
• Everyone in office 5 days/week
• Fast growth, strong culture
• Office costs: $120K/month

2020-2022: Distributed (pandemic forced)

• Everyone remote
• Hired globally (team 80 → 200)
• Saved $1.44M/year on office costs
• Culture suffered, onboarding harder

2022-2024: Hybrid experiment

• Tried to bring people back
• 40% refused (threatened to quit)
• Settled on “SF hub + distributed teams”

2024-present: Strategic distributed

• Embraced distributed as competitive advantage
• SF office for 30 people (exec team + some eng)
• 5 distributed teams (Austin, NYC, Berlin, Singapore, remote)

The Business Case for Distributed

Cost savings (annual):

• Office rent: $1.2M → $400K (saved $800K)
• Salaries: No change (pay market rate for role, not location)
• Benefits: Slight increase (remote work stipends)
• Net savings: ~$700K/year

Talent advantages:

• Hire anywhere (10x larger talent pool)
• Diversity (geographic, cultural, timezone)
• Retention (people don’t leave when they move)

Business advantages:

• 24/7 coverage (teams across time zones)
• Closer to customers (distributed sales/support)
• Resilience (no single point of failure)

The ROI is clear: Distributed is better for our business.

But Distributed Requires Different Operating Model

You can’t just “go remote” and keep operating like you’re in-office.

What we changed:

1. Communication: Sync → Async

Old (in-office):

• Tap someone on shoulder for quick question
• Impromptu meetings
• Whiteboard sessions

New (distributed):

• Default to async (write it down, get response later)
• Meetings are rare and scheduled
• Virtual whiteboarding (Miro, Figma)

Learning curve: 6 months for team to adapt

2. Documentation: Optional → Mandatory

Old (in-office):

• Tribal knowledge (just ask senior engineer)
• Light documentation
• “You had to be there” decisions

New (distributed):

• Everything documented (Notion, Confluence)
• Decision logs (why we chose X over Y)
• Onboarding handbook (300+ pages)

Investment: 2 FTEs dedicated to documentation

3. Meetings: Ad-hoc → Structured

Old (in-office):

• “Let’s sync in 5 minutes”
• Hour-long rambling discussions
• No agenda, no notes

New (distributed):

• All meetings have agenda (shared 24 hours before)
• Notes and action items required
• Recorded (for async viewers)
• No-meeting Fridays (focus time)

Result: Meeting time dropped 40%, decision quality improved

4. Team bonding: Daily → Intentional

Old (in-office):

• Daily lunch together
• After-work hangouts
• Birthday celebrations

New (distributed):

• Quarterly offsites (1 week, entire company)
• Virtual coffee chats (random pairing)
• Team budgets for local meetups

Cost: $500K/year for offsites, but worth it for culture

5. Performance: Time-based → Output-based

Old (in-office):

• “He’s always here, must be working hard”
• Face time = productivity (wrong, but perception existed)

New (distributed):

• Measured by output (shipped features, metrics)
• Flexibility on hours (as long as work gets done)
• Focus on results, not activity

Trust increased, micromanagement decreased

The Challenges We’re Still Solving

Challenge 1: Timezones

With team across 9 time zones:

• Hard to find overlap for all-hands meetings
• Some people always joining at awkward hours
• Async helps, but some things need sync

Our solution:

• Rotate meeting times (share the pain)
• Record everything
• Core collaboration hours (8am-12pm PT)

Challenge 2: “Remote privilege”

@eng_director_luis mentioned “hybrid privilege” (in-office people get face time).

We have opposite problem: “Remote privilege”

• Remote people get flexibility
• SF office people feel stuck commuting
• Creates resentment

Our solution:

• SF office is optional (even for people who live in SF)
• Office is for collaboration, not requirement
• No advantage to being in office vs. remote

Challenge 3: Onboarding junior engineers

@eng_director_luis is right: Junior engineers struggle remotely.

Our data:

• Junior eng in-office: 4 months to first significant contribution
• Junior eng remote: 7 months to first significant contribution

Our solution:

• Pair junior with senior mentor (dedicated 1-on-1 time)
• Longer onboarding (8 weeks vs. 4 weeks)
• Fly juniors to HQ for first month (intensive onboarding)

Cost: ~$15K extra per junior hire, but worth it

Challenge 4: Serendipity

In-office serendipity (overhearing valuable conversation) is real.

How to replicate remotely?

Our experiments:

• Virtual co-working (Zoom room open all day, join anytime)
• “Random coffee chats” (algorithm pairs people weekly)
• Public Slack channels (encourage sharing work in progress)

Result: Not as good as in-office serendipity, but better than nothing

The Hybrid Trap (And How to Avoid It)

Many companies do hybrid wrong:

Hybrid done wrong:

• Some people in office, some remote (same team)
• In-office people huddle, remote people excluded
• Two-tier culture emerges

Hybrid done right:

• Teams are either all-remote OR all-in-office (no mixing)
• If one person is remote, everyone joins meeting from own laptop (even if in office)
• Remote-first mindset (assume distributed, office is optional)

We learned this the hard way.

The Data: Distributed vs. In-Office Performance

We tracked productivity metrics for 2 years:

Metrics:

• Story points shipped per sprint
• Bug rate
• Customer satisfaction
• Employee engagement

Results:

Senior engineers:

• Remote: 15% MORE productive than in-office
• Reason: Fewer interruptions, deep focus time

Junior engineers:

• Remote: 20% LESS productive than in-office
• Reason: Less mentorship, slower learning

Overall team:

• Remote: Roughly equivalent to in-office (averages out)

Conclusion: Remote works for mature teams, harder for junior-heavy teams

My Advice for CTOs

Go distributed IF:

• You can commit to remote-first operating model (not just “let people work from home”)
• You’re willing to invest in documentation, tooling, process
• Your team is mostly senior (or you can invest extra in junior onboarding)
• Your business benefits from geographic distribution

Stay in-office IF:

• Your team is mostly junior (needs in-person mentorship)
• Your work requires in-person collaboration (hardware, labs, highly creative work)
• Your culture is competitive advantage (hard to build remotely)
• You’re willing to pay the cost (office rent, limited talent pool)

Don’t do hybrid unless:

• You can commit to remote-first mindset (even for in-office people)
• You’re willing to pay for both (office costs + remote tooling)

The Future I See

SF will remain important for:

• Early-stage startups (pre-Series A)
• Fundraising and investor relations
• Events and networking (SF Tech Week model)
• Specific industries (biotech, hardware)

Distributed will dominate for:

• Mature companies (Series B+)
• Software/AI (remote-friendly work)
• Global products (need distributed teams)
• Companies optimizing for profitability

The bifurcation:

• Early-stage: SF-centric
• Growth stage: Hybrid
• Mature: Distributed

SF Tech Week proves SF’s value as event hub, not necessarily as place to live/work daily.

Response to @sales_jenny’s Question

Should I stay in SF or move remote?

From business perspective:

Sales role can be remote (customer calls are Zoom).

Stay in SF if:

• Networking is critical to your role (meeting potential customers in person)
• Your company is SF-based (easier to work with product/eng teams)
• You’re early in sales career (learn from senior reps in person)

Go remote if:

• Your customers are distributed (no in-person advantage)
• Your company is remote-friendly
• Cost of living matters (save $26K/year)

Test it: Ask for 3-month remote trial. See if your performance changes.

Questions for This Community

For other CTOs:

• What’s your distributed operating model?
• How do you measure remote productivity?
• What’s your onboarding process for remote juniors?

For employees:

• What makes a remote company great vs. mediocre?
• What do you wish your company did better for remote work?

The remote vs. SF debate isn’t binary. It’s strategic.

Sources:

• Our company’s 6-year journey (SF → distributed → hybrid → strategic distributed)
• Internal productivity metrics (2 years of data)
• Cost analysis (office, salaries, benefits)
• Employee surveys and retention data
• Conversations with other CTOs at SF Tech Week