tonicb

I'm adopting Toni "The friend" from now on. It has a good ring to it.

We certainly didn't make things easy by calling our podcast "Another Podcast" and yes I agree with you - although audio has been around for a long time, the podcast space still has a lot of maturing to do, and on many fronts.

Thanks for tuning in (is that what people say these days? I don't know anymore) - it's appreciated.

Thanks for recommending the podcast - we've actually got an episode coming out tomorrow around the topic of pulling such a presentation together. Hope you enjoy it. Toni (aka 'the friend':) )

I couldn't agree more with you. Too often we expect the same outcome when throwing people into a new environment, and without clear processes, expectations...

Thanks for sharing and some good insights in there.

I actually had never heard of thehtime.com - so this was definitely a new discovery for me.

Now this is something that has been in my mind for some while now. I actually think this lack of understanding goes far beyond these two groups.

There is a lack of understanding, but also trust between citizens and the media, citizens and the tech space. And we also see the same with our legislators too.

All around people are struggling to understand each other.

I know exactly what you mean. As a product of the european Union - born in France, grew up in both France and Belgium, studied in the UK, France and Belgium, but British by passport I have benefited greatly from the free movement of people across Europe. But a European citizen not more it's as if i've lost a part of who I am.

As the saying goes; you can never truly appreciate what you have until it's gone.

I don't think the number of days (less or more) is what will make the different. As humans we are almost always going to complain about wanting more or less of something.

I know that for me the things that make me happier are:

- more efficient use of time - more effective processes (very much tied to the above) - percentage of time dedicated within the workweek to personal projects that might be far removed from the actual job or have a very long-term upside - more focus on the output rather than how/when the job got done. Note: I'm absolutely not saying here that all means justify the end.

I love this question so much and have been thinking about it for the past few days (especially as I just put out a four-part guide on remote work).

Here are a few stories I picked up in the past five years:

I was an executive at a tech company which had a HQ in California. I joined to lead our European expansion so from the outset it was clear that I was going to be defacto ‘remote’. Although, at the time it wasn’t discussed as such. What was very obvious was that at the start the responsibility was very much on me to get in front of the people I needed, be heard, aggressively communicate what I wanted/needed, wake up early, stay online late, set reminders to ping people before I would go to bed...

Then in order to acquire the best talent, the company decided to become remote-friendly (and later remote-first). And more or less immediately I felt the burden of responsibility lifting form our small European team because I (and the European team) was no longer alone in the remote work situation.

The moment the company was clear on its intention, the habits started to settle in and everyone seemed to get on the same page. It was quite impressive to watch. But this shift was absolutely intentional and top-down driven.

One interesting impact the shift to remote-friendly (which lead us to become remote-first) was the following:

An increasing number of people took advantage of this shift, the HQ office slowly started to empty and lost the upbeat and busy atmosphere it once had. The remote attitude also started to extend to people working at HQ and remote became synonymous for ‘Work from home’ and making this a recurring habit was tempting. Seeing as the default was starting to be remote, it mattered far less if the HQ people were physically in the office because all those habits necessary for remote work had settled in.

I would certainly avoid the blend of remote work and centralised office because right from the outset it creates two separate cultures. I would advocate for going all in if you are doing in. While we were transitioning we certainly had two cultures.

Common mistakes: - not being explicit and intentional with the decision - not knowing why you are doing this shift in the first place - seeing it as a perk rather than a fundamentally new way of working - not preparing for such a shift - being very clear on what 'remote' means for your company (how are you defining it)

what is the something in this context if not data?

because you are a non-partisan software? I agree with the 'getting into trouble piece' I think. I don't see how being non-partisan gets you into more trouble or would increase those chances.

I would be curious to know if you would expect these companies to be partisan too? And if not, why?

Really interesting point here. Although, there is a little more nuance needed and this is one of the big issues plaguing the campaigning software space - not all are created for the same goals and not all offer the same services.

If you take your example of NationBuilder, a company I know well as I led their European expansion, it only sold software not data. Unlike most American campaign software, NationBuilder does not sell data as part of their package. NationBuilder does not believe that you can create a sustainable and powerful community by using data that you have purchased, and thus only sells the platform.

So yes I agree with you that while campaigns can (and should) be paranoid about who has access to their data, and even how it is being used, this data brokerage model isn't the model that all companies adopt and it's a really important distinction to make.

While I am here, I will add the following, tech companies who want to democratise democracy (and I'm not saying that's the mission for everyone) and help lower the barrier to entry, cannot claim to do so if they alone decide who has access to these tools. Crucial decisions, such as which parties have access to the latest technology, should not be in the hands of a few tech titans of Silicon Valley - where the power they already wield is already unmeasurable.

All of the above is a fascinating and important debate and also a very American one. Campaigning and political technology is incredibly partisan in America, compared to Europe where what we fear most are monopolies.