3 ms·

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've s

by bphogan 16y ago

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing something here?

hvs 16y ago
My guess is that if a company is willing to sponsor specific development, he is willing to negotiate. I.e. fee-for-service to some extent.
nollidge 16y ago
I think that's him offering corporate support contracts, not sponsorships.
- bphogan 16y ago
  I guess I can see that. I didn't read "support" in terms of "support contract" but that does make more sense. Thanks.
barrkel 16y ago
Corporate support != corporate sponsorship. When you get a support contract from Red Hat (for example), you aren't donating money to the development of Linux like a sponsorship; you're indirectly supporting Linux development, but really what you're interested in is either (a) specific solutions to specific problems, or (b) getting access to people should a problem arise in the future during the term of the contract.
- bphogan 16y ago
  Is that really true though? If Company XYZ is your biggest support contract, they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they?
  - fogus 16y ago
    they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they? Only for the items relevant to the contract terms.
    - bphogan 16y ago
      I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There's no terms at all in the donation-based giving, and yet people think they have influence. Contracts get renegotiated all the time. What would prevent Company XYZ from exerting pressure along the lines of "we want you to do [abc] or we're not renewing?" All I was originally saying was that I just feel he'll end up in the same situation. I'm not suggesting he can't say no. :)
      - aidenn0 16y ago
        1) "Company XYZ" doesn't do anything. There are people making the decision. 2) I have run into people that will say that. It is usually a bluff. 3) In the rare cases it is not a bluff, you can either drop the business (figuring you don't want to deal with person X) or, if you think they are out-of-line take it to their superiors. All that being said, if you aren't willing to call the bluff for whatever reason, then they do exert an influence over you. That's really your fault though. If you have backed yourself into a corner where a single contract will make-or-break you and you aren't on really good terms with the people involved you are screwed no matter what.
      - scott_s 16y ago
        I think the sense of entitlement from a donation is unbounded, since it was voluntary. People are usually more clear that a business transaction is thing x for money y. If you're pointing out that people are acting irrationally, then, yes, they are. The difference is that we tend to treat "business transactions" different from other kinds - I think monetary donations are not seen as business transaction, so the expectations are different. See this excerpt from Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89233955 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8923395...
      - 16y ago
DeusExMachina 16y ago
I think that the difference is that this is not corporate sponsorship, but a service to corporations. As I see it with this service they pay him for his consulting and knowledge on how to use at best Clojure for development/testing/deploy. But they don't have the option to say something regarding the development of the language itself.
blacksmythe 16y ago
The expectations per dollar funded are much lower for a business. Individuals think a $100 contribution gives them some reason to bring up issues. Corporations think something similar for a $100k contribution.

by bphogan 16y ago

hvs 16y ago

My guess is that if a company is willing to sponsor specific development, he is willing to negotiate. I.e. fee-for-service to some extent.

nollidge 16y ago

I think that's him offering corporate support contracts, not sponsorships.

bphogan 16y ago
I guess I can see that. I didn't read "support" in terms of "support contract" but that does make more sense. Thanks.

barrkel 16y ago

Corporate support != corporate sponsorship. When you get a support contract from Red Hat (for example), you aren't donating money to the development of Linux like a sponsorship; you're indirectly supporting Linux development, but really what you're interested in is either (a) specific solutions to specific problems, or (b) getting access to people should a problem arise in the future during the term of the contract.

bphogan 16y ago
Is that really true though? If Company XYZ is your biggest support contract, they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they?
- fogus 16y ago
  they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they? Only for the items relevant to the contract terms.
  - bphogan 16y ago
    I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There's no terms at all in the donation-based giving, and yet people think they have influence. Contracts get renegotiated all the time. What would prevent Company XYZ from exerting pressure along the lines of "we want you to do [abc] or we're not renewing?" All I was originally saying was that I just feel he'll end up in the same situation. I'm not suggesting he can't say no. :)
    - aidenn0 16y ago
      1) "Company XYZ" doesn't do anything. There are people making the decision. 2) I have run into people that will say that. It is usually a bluff. 3) In the rare cases it is not a bluff, you can either drop the business (figuring you don't want to deal with person X) or, if you think they are out-of-line take it to their superiors. All that being said, if you aren't willing to call the bluff for whatever reason, then they do exert an influence over you. That's really your fault though. If you have backed yourself into a corner where a single contract will make-or-break you and you aren't on really good terms with the people involved you are screwed no matter what.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      I think the sense of entitlement from a donation is unbounded, since it was voluntary. People are usually more clear that a business transaction is thing x for money y. If you're pointing out that people are acting irrationally, then, yes, they are. The difference is that we tend to treat "business transactions" different from other kinds - I think monetary donations are not seen as business transaction, so the expectations are different. See this excerpt from Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89233955 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8923395...
    - 16y ago

DeusExMachina 16y ago

I think that the difference is that this is not corporate sponsorship, but a service to corporations. As I see it with this service they pay him for his consulting and knowledge on how to use at best Clojure for development/testing/deploy. But they don't have the option to say something regarding the development of the language itself.

blacksmythe 16y ago

The expectations per dollar funded are much lower for a business. Individuals think a $100 contribution gives them some reason to bring up issues. Corporations think something similar for a $100k contribution.