3 ms·

Over a year I started the process of convincing the people I needed to at my job (Federal, Non Defense/Law Enforcement) to get an instance of Github Enterprise

by buckie 12y ago

Over a year I started the process of convincing the people I needed to at my job (Federal, Non Defense/Law Enforcement) to get an instance of Github Enterprise installed. Though it took a lot of time and effort, I managed to get both the approval and funds needed for a small scale - 10 user - install (on my 3rd try, gov't is really against change). Our current "enterprise" VCS is PVCS (so old I had to look it up). The idea was to get github installed on a small scale, gain support and extend it to the entire agency over the course of a couple years. Everyone who deals with PVCS wants git, but the management don't care to put in the effort to get it initially, so gaining the support would be easy. A couple months ago, the entire thing collapsed on my face and we went with gitlab instead. Why? Because github's sales team f*ed it up. Apparently, the $5k minimum order was too small for them to care (at least that's what my side says). Too bad, I really wanted to get them in the door. I'm sure it's just a bad egg in the sales, but seriously there are some people trying to fix/modernize gov't tech from the inside and thing's like this don't help. I guess my only recommendation is that if your company usually sells to private and the gov't asks for a small-sized purchase please be flexible. The guy who caused this request to happen has likely been putting in a huge amount of effort and has larger plans for integrating your service over time. The person who is contacting you is not that guy, has no idea what your product (or any tech) is/why it matters and is usually doing the originator a favor.

akerl_ 12y ago
Having previously used a single seat-pack deployment (the aforementioned $5k minimum order), and having sent a fairly substantial amount of questions/requests to GitHub's enterprise support folks, I'm not sure what you mean by "too small for them to care". It's not like they're going to be exchanging tech stuff with your billing person, so not sure what issue you're referring to in your last sentences. In order for GitHub to take away anything actionable from your example, they'd need more details on what issues actually occurred with the interaction.
benbalter 12y ago
> A couple months ago, the entire thing collapsed on my face and we went with gitlab instead. Why? Because github's sales team f*ed it up. Apparently, the $5k minimum order was too small for them to care (at least that's what my side says). Too bad, I really wanted to get them in the door. Ben Balter from GitHub's government team here. I'm sorry to hear we let you down. Please let us make it up to you. You (or anyone else) should feel free to reach out to me any time at government@github.com, and I'll personally help navigate the process. For what it's worth, we care a lot about the experiences of all our users, whether you're a developer using the GitHub.com front end, a system administrator spinning up GitHub Enterprise, or a COTR procuring a license for your agency. I'm not part of the Sales team. In fact, my full-time job is to help empower those working to "fix/modernize gov't tech from the inside", and a big part of that over the past year or so has been seriously leveling up the user experience for government and other large enterprises. To help here, we now have a dedicated government team (https://government.github.com https://government.github.com) that makes sure our front-line sales reps and supportocats are conversant in "govspeak", a semi-private government peer group (https://github.com/government/welcome https://github.com/government/welcome) to collaborate on best practices, and are streamlining the procurement process for government with invoicing and standardized contract vehicles (and now FedRAMP support as part of AWS). I'd love your input on how we can do better.
- buckie 12y ago
  This is all really great to hear, I've already begun the process of restarting the engine. It will likely take me 3-6 months just to get the momentum needed to reach out again officially. Oh the gov't... > I'd love your input on how we can do better. As I'm not in procurement and don't want to make assumptions about how your shop is run I don't have any comments of merit/meaning beyond my previous ones & saying an honest thanks for your reply and I hope that I can get my guys to reach out to you sometime next year.
teacup50 12y ago
Consider Atlassian's Stash: https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash Similar feature set, but otherwise better in almost every way (and I don't work for Atlassian, just for the record). Some examples: - Source code is provided when you purchase a license, and you have the right to modify it (just not distribute it). Whether or not Atlassian is still around in 10 years (they probably will be), you'll never be left in the cold with something you can't maintain, or bugs that can't be fixed. - Pricing is up-front and non-discriminatory. The prices are listed publicly, and you can buy it on your Amex, right now, without ever speaking to a sales team (unless you want to). - Distributed as an installable application, not an opaque VM like GitHub Enterprise, so you can provision it in any environment, not worry about out-of-date OS components, dealing with an opaque black box you can't administer directly, or any other similar issues. - Extension API. You (very easily) can write extensions that hook into just about any aspect of Stash, without having to work with an external REST API (unless you want to — it has a REST API, too). Atlassian provides a built-in extension "app store" for both free and commercial extensions, and there are a lot of great free (and open source) extensions out there.
incision 12y ago
>"Apparently, the $5k minimum order was too small for them to care (at least that's what my side says)." I find this to be pretty typical behavior when representing Government to vendors. It doesn't impress me as being dismissive so much as indirect sales pressure. A vendor knows that the typical Government agency can and does regularly piss away 10-100x that amount on systems that never see the light of day. They're betting that if the initiative has any real support someone will find the funding to make it happen. Problem is, this is probably worst possible tactic to take with someone in your position who is trying to enact change without substantial/any budget to command. The people on your end are happy to walk away, they've already done it twice and they were surely just looking for a reason to do it a third time. Word to salespeople working with Government: When you're dealing with a lone "champion" inside some organization you should be thinking in terms of cheaply seeding for the future and having friendly eyes and ears inside - not booking a sale this quarter. Also, as the OP points out, you're going to be dealing with entirely segregated procurement departments who are likely out of their comfort zone to be handling the task at all - not the sort you should be at all impatient, demanding or upselling with. Now, to be fair I should point out that I think there are some valid reasons for vendors to avoid small deals. The main thing is perception. The naysayers are going to attack any new installation the moment it hits the floor. If a minimal install isn't defensible against a hostile environment like that seeing it fail will kill any potential future business for the vendor. A simple way to mitigate this is sign an agency up and leave them fully-featured and uncapped - no friction to grow the product internally. Then, this is important, resist the urge to demand a huge true-up once things have taken root, just ramp up gradually and understand that the social proof of your having your product fully-established in one such agency will open the door to sales elsewhere.

by buckie 12y ago

akerl_ 12y ago

Having previously used a single seat-pack deployment (the aforementioned $5k minimum order), and having sent a fairly substantial amount of questions/requests to GitHub's enterprise support folks, I'm not sure what you mean by "too small for them to care". It's not like they're going to be exchanging tech stuff with your billing person, so not sure what issue you're referring to in your last sentences. In order for GitHub to take away anything actionable from your example, they'd need more details on what issues actually occurred with the interaction.

benbalter 12y ago

> A couple months ago, the entire thing collapsed on my face and we went with gitlab instead. Why? Because github's sales team f*ed it up. Apparently, the $5k minimum order was too small for them to care (at least that's what my side says). Too bad, I really wanted to get them in the door. Ben Balter from GitHub's government team here. I'm sorry to hear we let you down. Please let us make it up to you. You (or anyone else) should feel free to reach out to me any time at government@github.com, and I'll personally help navigate the process. For what it's worth, we care a lot about the experiences of all our users, whether you're a developer using the GitHub.com front end, a system administrator spinning up GitHub Enterprise, or a COTR procuring a license for your agency. I'm not part of the Sales team. In fact, my full-time job is to help empower those working to "fix/modernize gov't tech from the inside", and a big part of that over the past year or so has been seriously leveling up the user experience for government and other large enterprises. To help here, we now have a dedicated government team (https://government.github.com https://government.github.com) that makes sure our front-line sales reps and supportocats are conversant in "govspeak", a semi-private government peer group (https://github.com/government/welcome https://github.com/government/welcome) to collaborate on best practices, and are streamlining the procurement process for government with invoicing and standardized contract vehicles (and now FedRAMP support as part of AWS). I'd love your input on how we can do better.

buckie 12y ago
This is all really great to hear, I've already begun the process of restarting the engine. It will likely take me 3-6 months just to get the momentum needed to reach out again officially. Oh the gov't... > I'd love your input on how we can do better. As I'm not in procurement and don't want to make assumptions about how your shop is run I don't have any comments of merit/meaning beyond my previous ones & saying an honest thanks for your reply and I hope that I can get my guys to reach out to you sometime next year.

teacup50 12y ago

Consider Atlassian's Stash: https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash Similar feature set, but otherwise better in almost every way (and I don't work for Atlassian, just for the record). Some examples: - Source code is provided when you purchase a license, and you have the right to modify it (just not distribute it). Whether or not Atlassian is still around in 10 years (they probably will be), you'll never be left in the cold with something you can't maintain, or bugs that can't be fixed. - Pricing is up-front and non-discriminatory. The prices are listed publicly, and you can buy it on your Amex, right now, without ever speaking to a sales team (unless you want to). - Distributed as an installable application, not an opaque VM like GitHub Enterprise, so you can provision it in any environment, not worry about out-of-date OS components, dealing with an opaque black box you can't administer directly, or any other similar issues. - Extension API. You (very easily) can write extensions that hook into just about any aspect of Stash, without having to work with an external REST API (unless you want to — it has a REST API, too). Atlassian provides a built-in extension "app store" for both free and commercial extensions, and there are a lot of great free (and open source) extensions out there.

incision 12y ago

>"Apparently, the $5k minimum order was too small for them to care (at least that's what my side says)." I find this to be pretty typical behavior when representing Government to vendors. It doesn't impress me as being dismissive so much as indirect sales pressure. A vendor knows that the typical Government agency can and does regularly piss away 10-100x that amount on systems that never see the light of day. They're betting that if the initiative has any real support someone will find the funding to make it happen. Problem is, this is probably worst possible tactic to take with someone in your position who is trying to enact change without substantial/any budget to command. The people on your end are happy to walk away, they've already done it twice and they were surely just looking for a reason to do it a third time. Word to salespeople working with Government: When you're dealing with a lone "champion" inside some organization you should be thinking in terms of cheaply seeding for the future and having friendly eyes and ears inside - not booking a sale this quarter. Also, as the OP points out, you're going to be dealing with entirely segregated procurement departments who are likely out of their comfort zone to be handling the task at all - not the sort you should be at all impatient, demanding or upselling with. Now, to be fair I should point out that I think there are some valid reasons for vendors to avoid small deals. The main thing is perception. The naysayers are going to attack any new installation the moment it hits the floor. If a minimal install isn't defensible against a hostile environment like that seeing it fail will kill any potential future business for the vendor. A simple way to mitigate this is sign an agency up and leave them fully-featured and uncapped - no friction to grow the product internally. Then, this is important, resist the urge to demand a huge true-up once things have taken root, just ramp up gradually and understand that the social proof of your having your product fully-established in one such agency will open the door to sales elsewhere.