On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> > I respectfully disagree, and from an outsider's perspective, Dennis
> > is right. Until I read this 2 minutes ago, all I knew was that there
> > was some legal issue with build 31+, but no details.
>
> The lawyers really hate us publically stating "We distributed build XX
> in such a way that we violated our license with _______, and had to stop."
> If ______ didn't notice yet, we'd be sending their legal department a
> free case of ammo to fire at us, and not really helping anyone anyway.
>
> Other than morbid curiosity, does knowing which component is resulting
> in legal delay help anyone outside Sun? There's nothing you can do
> with that knowledge, just wait as long as you would have knowing that
> somewhere in SX there's a legal problem waiting to be solved by Sun.
Its a human perception type thing. For example, if I tell a client that:
A) "productX version 1.3.1 was faulty and we've building a new release" ...
all I get is grief. And I take a credibility "hit".
If I tell them:
B) "Yep - *I* did it - I built the bloody release on the wrong machine
which only had a *backup* copy of the sources and had a bad Sun Studio
installation which everyone, except me, knew *not* to use"; they are happy
and they say: "Ohh ... OK".
Why is this? Because explanation A) leaves too much to the imagination and
can give the client, or the slightly paranoid observer, the impression that
we really don't know why the build failed or what the root cause of the
issue really is/was. Whereas option B) leaves nothing to the imagination
and actually increases your credibility! I know its counter intuitive and
option B does not really provide any real detailed information; but it
provides enough information that the client can understand what the
underlying issue was and does not "feel" like they need to keep digging to
find out what is really going on.
I refer to option B) as the "brutal honesty" approach. And brutal honesty
always works. And yes, this is a real world example, not a made up,
ficticious case.
My point is that being upfront will always work - and it does not
necessarily imply that you have to divulge details that you would rather
keep private. Just a degree of humility and willingness to admit that we
are all human and make human mistakes.
> (I will agree that better status updates on how long you have to wait
> would be a good thing.)
Agreed.
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
