5 ms·

Seems like it simply boils down to compensation and OKRs based on yearly cycles[0], weirdly. Seems most of the comments after that are just unhappy with the lac

Seems like it simply boils down to compensation and OKRs based on yearly cycles[0], weirdly. Seems most of the comments after that are just unhappy with the lack of a monthly option. [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/5595#note_80889728 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/5595#note_8088...

that_guy_iain 4y ago
Ah, missed that comment. Seems to me that not being able to add a rather in demand feature because of OKR/KPI/etc highlights a flawed reality. Where stats are more important that making more money.
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  Who says they'll make more money? Based on this thread alone, it sounds like monthly customers would spend very little money while whining and demanding more support time. In a good business, the metrics are set by somebody who knows better what will actually make money.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    > Who says they'll make more money? Based on this thread alone, it sounds like monthly customers would spend very little money while whining and demanding more support time. Based on that thread there were multiple people saying there 30-50 sized dev team wanted to signup but couldn’t get approval for the whole sum in one go. One even said they followed the issue for 3-years before going to GitHub because they can pay monthly. > In a good business, the metrics are set by somebody who knows better what will actually make money. Who said it was a good business? They just stated they couldn’t accept an extremely standard and probably most the used payment option because they work out employee compensation based on year subscriptions. To me, that is a red flag and makes me wonder what goes on there.
loloquwowndueo 4y ago
Wow that takes “optimizing for the metric” (aka fudging data to hit objectives ) to a whole new level :)
- marcinzm 4y ago
  And so publicly matter of fact about it too. Usually there's some attempt to hide that metrics are being gamed but they seem to just embrace it. Not sure what that says.

that_guy_iain 4y ago

Ah, missed that comment. Seems to me that not being able to add a rather in demand feature because of OKR/KPI/etc highlights a flawed reality. Where stats are more important that making more money.

ForHackernews 4y ago
Who says they'll make more money? Based on this thread alone, it sounds like monthly customers would spend very little money while whining and demanding more support time. In a good business, the metrics are set by somebody who knows better what will actually make money.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  > Who says they'll make more money? Based on this thread alone, it sounds like monthly customers would spend very little money while whining and demanding more support time. Based on that thread there were multiple people saying there 30-50 sized dev team wanted to signup but couldn’t get approval for the whole sum in one go. One even said they followed the issue for 3-years before going to GitHub because they can pay monthly. > In a good business, the metrics are set by somebody who knows better what will actually make money. Who said it was a good business? They just stated they couldn’t accept an extremely standard and probably most the used payment option because they work out employee compensation based on year subscriptions. To me, that is a red flag and makes me wonder what goes on there.

loloquwowndueo 4y ago

Wow that takes “optimizing for the metric” (aka fudging data to hit objectives ) to a whole new level :)

marcinzm 4y ago
And so publicly matter of fact about it too. Usually there's some attempt to hide that metrics are being gamed but they seem to just embrace it. Not sure what that says.