3 ms·

> You are contracted to modify it (regardless of what the buyer said he wanted) - and you are responsible for not making it dangerous. Actually, with governmen

> You are contracted to modify it (regardless of what the buyer said he wanted) - and you are responsible for not making it dangerous. Actually, with government contracts, you are legally obligated to perform only the task assigned. Providing work to the government without the government paying for it is illegal. And you are only being paid for what's in the contract. (This is actually overall a good thing. Otherwise, large companies with better margins could easily provide free value-adds to government customers to win contracts away from small shops with small margins.) Now, in this case, yes maybe the contractual item could have been interpreted in a way that allowed a proper page redesign. However, I would never state that as a fact without having the requirements and also receiving agreement from the government customer over such changes.

alkonaut 9y ago
This might be the case, but I sure wouldn’t have done it this way regardless. I would have pressed on to get the customer to revise the order, or just fixed it (criminal or not), or refused the job. This is clearly a case where all the downsides of bureaucracy were in full effect (someone might be afraid to touch something) but not the benefits (lots of security checks and balances such as in air traffic control).
- whatever_dude 9y ago
  > I would have pressed on to get the customer to revise the order, or just fixed it When "trying to do it right" means you have to go through layers and layers of bureaucracy and probably ruffle a few feathers in the process, over and over again, I can see how some people quick learn to "just do their job". This is human behavior. We can talk as much as we want about what would be the ideal solution here, and how we would never do it, but problems like this don't happen in a vacuum and are rarely one person's fault. It's a whole system that leads to this.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Yes - this is a very broken system and that needs to be addressed. But what I was trying to say was that by either refusing to do it outright, o doing it right (without “asking for permission”). That is - I’d rather be jailed or fired than doing this. And I hope that goes for most devs.
nokcha 9y ago
>Providing work to the government without the government paying for it is illegal. The Anti-Deficiency Act only prohibits "voluntary" services, not "gratuitous" services. Prior to the passage of the law, it was not unusual for cash-strapped gov't agencies to accept "voluntary" services (i.e., no formal obligation to pay for them) but then pay for them later after being allocated more funds. Congress didn't like this so it outlawed the practice. However, if someone wants to donate services to the gov't and executes a written agreement to not accept payment, then it is legal for the government to accept the free services. See, e.g., https://www.gao.gov/assets/450/441639.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/450/441639.pdf
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Thanks for the important clarification. I think the relevant part for this conversation is that the work still has to be outlined within a contract, and that contract has to specify that there is no compensation. That's a drastically different scenario than pretty much any developer in a government contract situation would find themselves. It would still be illegal to do work outside of that specified in the contract!

alkonaut 9y ago

This might be the case, but I sure wouldn’t have done it this way regardless. I would have pressed on to get the customer to revise the order, or just fixed it (criminal or not), or refused the job. This is clearly a case where all the downsides of bureaucracy were in full effect (someone might be afraid to touch something) but not the benefits (lots of security checks and balances such as in air traffic control).

whatever_dude 9y ago
> I would have pressed on to get the customer to revise the order, or just fixed it When "trying to do it right" means you have to go through layers and layers of bureaucracy and probably ruffle a few feathers in the process, over and over again, I can see how some people quick learn to "just do their job". This is human behavior. We can talk as much as we want about what would be the ideal solution here, and how we would never do it, but problems like this don't happen in a vacuum and are rarely one person's fault. It's a whole system that leads to this.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Yes - this is a very broken system and that needs to be addressed. But what I was trying to say was that by either refusing to do it outright, o doing it right (without “asking for permission”). That is - I’d rather be jailed or fired than doing this. And I hope that goes for most devs.

nokcha 9y ago

>Providing work to the government without the government paying for it is illegal. The Anti-Deficiency Act only prohibits "voluntary" services, not "gratuitous" services. Prior to the passage of the law, it was not unusual for cash-strapped gov't agencies to accept "voluntary" services (i.e., no formal obligation to pay for them) but then pay for them later after being allocated more funds. Congress didn't like this so it outlawed the practice. However, if someone wants to donate services to the gov't and executes a written agreement to not accept payment, then it is legal for the government to accept the free services. See, e.g., https://www.gao.gov/assets/450/441639.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/450/441639.pdf

jdmichal 9y ago
Thanks for the important clarification. I think the relevant part for this conversation is that the work still has to be outlined within a contract, and that contract has to specify that there is no compensation. That's a drastically different scenario than pretty much any developer in a government contract situation would find themselves. It would still be illegal to do work outside of that specified in the contract!