6 ms·

The pushback from users made them rethink this change, here's a pending merge request to the blogpost: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_reques

The pushback from users made them rethink this change, here's a pending merge request to the blogpost: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/33289/diffs https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/... """ UPDATE: Thanks for the feedback. There were many more concerns than we expected. We’re going to process the feedback and rethink our plan. We will not activate product usage tracking on GitLab.com or GitLab self-managed for now. We'll make sure to communicate in advance on our blog when we do have a new plan. """

dorian-graph 7y ago
> There were many more concerns than we expected. So they expected some, but still went ahead anyway?
- jcims 7y ago
  Nothing wrong with that in general, you can't make everyone happy.
- toflon 7y ago
  There will always be concerns from some people. Always.
- skywhopper 7y ago
  There will always be concerns and complaints. I'm more surprised they didn't expect a firestorm given the way they explained the change, though. I wonder how many people actually reviewed the language.
ianamartin 7y ago
You can tell a company has totally lost their heads up their asses when you get the, "Whoa! We totally weren't expecting <product decision> to upset so many people!" Like really? Considering what people use your product for, you honestly didn't expect this to upset people? Great. Your product team is hopelessly out of touch.
- rhombocombus 7y ago
  That places them on the "companies I probably wouldn't be happy working for" list. Certainly there are folks there who tried to speak up about it who were likely railroaded.
  - swozey 7y ago
    That's the vibe I get on just about every one of Gitlabs new screed posts on here recently. Hopefully there actually is some employee consensus on decisions, though.
- Kalium 7y ago
  As a rule, the structures around product teams tend to discourage asking if it's better to not ship a thing. When you measure a team by what (and how many things) they ship, they are always going to default to shipping things.
  - kevas 7y ago
    This is hitting too close to home. Currently on a team that does what’s on the task list without questioning anything—driving me up the wall.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      This is a function of the organization, not the team. If you hear ‘do it anyway’ after raising concerns one too many times, eventually you just do it.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        Not necessarily. It depends on exactly what "it" is. I have quit jobs before because I was required to implement something that I considered an egregiously terrible idea.
  - overgard 7y ago
    The structure thing is spot on. Decisions like this tend to get made when management has found a way to essentially silence any feedback (by making feedback pointless). This is why I cringe whenever I hear the phrase "leadership team". Whenever I hear that phrase deployed it's almost always to diffuse responsibility for a bad decision so no single person has to answer for it. Which amusingly is the opposite of real leadership: real leaders actually accept responsibility for the decisions they make.
Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
This language is the classic "defuse, wait, and try again later" approach to shoeing in unpopular changes. They're still hedging their bets with this language, rather than renouncing the original ideas. Apologising for "bad communication" instead of bad changes is another classic deflection move they've pulled in other threads, too. <disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor>
- mwcampbell 7y ago
  > <disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor> IMO, if you want to compete with GitLab, you should introduce some higher pricing tiers targeted at businesses. These should be comparable to GitLab's pricing tiers and should not have "hacker" in their names. I also suggest that for these higher pricing tiers, you make it explicit that using the service for closed-source projects is OK.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
    This is good feedback, but I think the bigger issue is the alpha quality of the service. People who move now will have to be tolerant of some pieces being missing or under-documented, which often means a vote of confidence in the future of SourceHut more so than in the present. When the alpha becomes the beta, and then production, the pricing model will be re-evaluated.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Ideally, price it at the $20/month/person price that Gitlab has, because that seems to be the highest that I’m able to sell to Management. Theoretically $100/month/person would still be a great deal, but the finance people don’t look at it like that. They just see the $97.5/month/person difference with Bitbucket.
rvz 7y ago
> There were many more concerns than we expected. Telemetry was always going to be a concern with services that promote themselves as "open-source" or "free-software". The subject is so important that it is one of the reasons that the mass exodus from GitHub to GitLab happened. So to say that "there were many more concerns than we expected" is complete bullsh*t and appears more like the VCs are puppeteering the founders with this talk here. Like other companies that are at the mercy of VC funding, they will do anything to please them over the "community" to show that they are growing. So don't be fooled by this empty response.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  Because of their fiduciary responsibility, the officers of a corporation must make decisions that increase shareholder value. Refusing to add profitable data collection to the product due to ethical concerns would be a violation of that duty to the investors. This will keep happening until it literally becomes illegal to collect personal information.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    > Because of their fiduciary responsibility, the officers of a corporation must make decisions that increase shareholder value. Drilling a hole in your ship may be immediately helpful because you are thirsty, but ultimately it’s not going to end well for you. I’d say it’s well within the realm of reason to say a hard ‘no’ to investors in this case.
  - rswail 7y ago
    This is a corporate lie that has been promoted relentlessly since the Reagan era. Officers of a corporation are responsible for the operation of the corporation in accordance with the law. They are responsible to the Board of Directors of the corporation, not the shareholders. The Directors are responsible to the shareholders. They have a responsibility of care (including a fiduciary responsibility) to operate the corporation in the corporation's best interest, not the shareholders, as directed by the Board. That best interest can be measured in all sorts of ways as established by the Directors, which may include increasing shareholder value. The practise of CEOs also being the Chairman of the Board, of executives being major shareholders, of bonuses being driven by share price, are all practises that should be eliminated, given that they are not in alignment with an executive's actual responsibilities and duties.

dorian-graph 7y ago

> There were many more concerns than we expected. So they expected some, but still went ahead anyway?

jcims 7y ago
Nothing wrong with that in general, you can't make everyone happy.
toflon 7y ago
There will always be concerns from some people. Always.
skywhopper 7y ago
There will always be concerns and complaints. I'm more surprised they didn't expect a firestorm given the way they explained the change, though. I wonder how many people actually reviewed the language.

ianamartin 7y ago

You can tell a company has totally lost their heads up their asses when you get the, "Whoa! We totally weren't expecting <product decision> to upset so many people!" Like really? Considering what people use your product for, you honestly didn't expect this to upset people? Great. Your product team is hopelessly out of touch.

rhombocombus 7y ago
That places them on the "companies I probably wouldn't be happy working for" list. Certainly there are folks there who tried to speak up about it who were likely railroaded.
- swozey 7y ago
  That's the vibe I get on just about every one of Gitlabs new screed posts on here recently. Hopefully there actually is some employee consensus on decisions, though.
Kalium 7y ago
As a rule, the structures around product teams tend to discourage asking if it's better to not ship a thing. When you measure a team by what (and how many things) they ship, they are always going to default to shipping things.
- kevas 7y ago
  This is hitting too close to home. Currently on a team that does what’s on the task list without questioning anything—driving me up the wall.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    This is a function of the organization, not the team. If you hear ‘do it anyway’ after raising concerns one too many times, eventually you just do it.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      Not necessarily. It depends on exactly what "it" is. I have quit jobs before because I was required to implement something that I considered an egregiously terrible idea.
- overgard 7y ago
  The structure thing is spot on. Decisions like this tend to get made when management has found a way to essentially silence any feedback (by making feedback pointless). This is why I cringe whenever I hear the phrase "leadership team". Whenever I hear that phrase deployed it's almost always to diffuse responsibility for a bad decision so no single person has to answer for it. Which amusingly is the opposite of real leadership: real leaders actually accept responsibility for the decisions they make.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago

This language is the classic "defuse, wait, and try again later" approach to shoeing in unpopular changes. They're still hedging their bets with this language, rather than renouncing the original ideas. Apologising for "bad communication" instead of bad changes is another classic deflection move they've pulled in other threads, too. <disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor>

mwcampbell 7y ago
> <disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor> IMO, if you want to compete with GitLab, you should introduce some higher pricing tiers targeted at businesses. These should be comparable to GitLab's pricing tiers and should not have "hacker" in their names. I also suggest that for these higher pricing tiers, you make it explicit that using the service for closed-source projects is OK.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  This is good feedback, but I think the bigger issue is the alpha quality of the service. People who move now will have to be tolerant of some pieces being missing or under-documented, which often means a vote of confidence in the future of SourceHut more so than in the present. When the alpha becomes the beta, and then production, the pricing model will be re-evaluated.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Ideally, price it at the $20/month/person price that Gitlab has, because that seems to be the highest that I’m able to sell to Management. Theoretically $100/month/person would still be a great deal, but the finance people don’t look at it like that. They just see the $97.5/month/person difference with Bitbucket.

rvz 7y ago

> There were many more concerns than we expected. Telemetry was always going to be a concern with services that promote themselves as "open-source" or "free-software". The subject is so important that it is one of the reasons that the mass exodus from GitHub to GitLab happened. So to say that "there were many more concerns than we expected" is complete bullsh*t and appears more like the VCs are puppeteering the founders with this talk here. Like other companies that are at the mercy of VC funding, they will do anything to please them over the "community" to show that they are growing. So don't be fooled by this empty response.

matheusmoreira 7y ago
Because of their fiduciary responsibility, the officers of a corporation must make decisions that increase shareholder value. Refusing to add profitable data collection to the product due to ethical concerns would be a violation of that duty to the investors. This will keep happening until it literally becomes illegal to collect personal information.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  > Because of their fiduciary responsibility, the officers of a corporation must make decisions that increase shareholder value. Drilling a hole in your ship may be immediately helpful because you are thirsty, but ultimately it’s not going to end well for you. I’d say it’s well within the realm of reason to say a hard ‘no’ to investors in this case.
- rswail 7y ago
  This is a corporate lie that has been promoted relentlessly since the Reagan era. Officers of a corporation are responsible for the operation of the corporation in accordance with the law. They are responsible to the Board of Directors of the corporation, not the shareholders. The Directors are responsible to the shareholders. They have a responsibility of care (including a fiduciary responsibility) to operate the corporation in the corporation's best interest, not the shareholders, as directed by the Board. That best interest can be measured in all sorts of ways as established by the Directors, which may include increasing shareholder value. The practise of CEOs also being the Chairman of the Board, of executives being major shareholders, of bonuses being driven by share price, are all practises that should be eliminated, given that they are not in alignment with an executive's actual responsibilities and duties.