Avoiding Tony. Was: Re: Phoenix.pm: Software Developer Needed

[Scott Walters]

Sorry, I wasn't quite in context, probably because I didn't set up the
context correctly.

I asked how many people were avoiding Tony because other people in the past
have told me that they are. 

Re: silly stupid thing, what I meant is, it doesn't make sense to have a bunch 
of people avoiding one person who isn't even there. 

If there are a lot of people avoiding Tony who would otherwise go to the meetings,
don't tell me about it, don't whisper it around to other people as if they care,
but talk to Tony - I suggested specifically asking him to RSVP and not attend
if he doesnt' RSVP. That allow people to avoid him much more efficiently
(in that Tony seldom attends). And this is a reasonable request that Tony
is likely to honor. 

-scott


On  0, Bill Nash <billn at billn.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> It could be just me. Of the perl community circles I myself travel in,
> there are very few people, from those circles, in Phoenix. Tony's
> reputation apparantly doesn't precede him here.
> 
> Plain and simple, I don't like Tony, for a fair number of perfectly valid
> reasons. His behavior simply exacerbates the issue. I don't think my
> non-attendence of local .pm events due to the potential of running into
> Tony is a 'silly stupid' thing, it's mere prudence. As inactive as this
> list tends to be, the potential benefits of attending these events don't
> outweigh the potentially negative effects.
> 
> I see no reason to (further) sully what is likely otherwise a perfectly
> good forum for other people because I have personal differences with
> another member.
> 
> - billn
> 
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Scott Walters wrote:
> 
> > Okey, how many people are avoiding Tony?
> >
> > I don't want to get involved, but if a bunch of people are avoiding Tony
> > for fear of running into him at a meeting, when he actually very seldom
> > attends, perhaps something in your mutual interest can be worked out.
> > Perhaps Tony can refrain from attending when he hasn't RSVP'd. I don't
> > know. This situation just strikes me as one of those silly stupid things.
> >
> > -scott
> >
> >
> > On  0, Bill Nash <billn at billn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, intertwingled wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gosh, I hope to meet billn at a future Perlmonger's meeting. =)
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > >
> > > Actually, you're the specific reason I do not attend Perlmonger meetings.
> > >
> > > You may/should correctly assume that any and all distance I require you to
> > > keep from me extends to both this forum and life in general.
> > >
> > > - billn
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Scott Walters wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >billn,
> > > > >
> > > > >Good advice.
> > > > >
> > > > >My case was somewhat exceptional - I had released cart code under
> > > > >the GPL that included code to bang several bank credit card gateways,
> > > > >including some almost entirely undocumented ones, and it was this
> > > > >experience (reverse engineering credit card gateways) that they
> > > > >were interested in (if it is possible to glean anything from an
> > > > >interview). So, before the job was offered, I was already in competition
> > > > >with them. The job was offered because because of the experience
> > > > >I would bring. I job was out of the question because it was decided
> > > > >by their on staff legal personal that my side work might benefit from
> > > > >things I learned on the job, and they might some day find themselves
> > > > >in competition with my work.
> > > > >
> > > > >My focus was complete solutions - not turn key ones, but class libraries
> > > > >and object frameworks flexible enough to be reused between diverse client
> > > > >needs where clients had complex, specific requirements and graphic
> > > > >design is done by a seperate party or a team. It is unlikely that
> > > > >the project would ever meet.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't mean to give ccbill grief - and from what I hear, these contracts
> > > > >are pretty standard - but I think this serves as a good parable. Let me
> > > > >draw an analogy to my parable =) If you're a hit man, you'll have lots
> > > > >of customers, even though you'll garter much fear and respect from your
> > > > >clients as they seek square cut deals and clear boundaries. If you kill
> > > > >people ramdonly as some sort of amature serial killer, then you will have
> > > > >no clients, no business, and no deals. Because free software programmers
> > > > >are so universally threatening to established development (as free
> > > > >software is universally threatening to commercial software), no clear
> > > > >bounds can be drawn, no employer can feel safe.
> > > > >
> > > > >I was told that ccbill does employ a number of programmers who have released
> > > > >things GPL or otherwise, so this parable only serves to illustrate the
> > > > >problem - not to paint the scope of it or attitude towards it.
> > > > >
> > > > >For nervous clients in the past, I've tried other analogies - free software
> > > > >programming is like doing a research grant at school - you do the work, it is
> > > > >good experience, but the university owns it, and the university is accountable
> > > > >to the state and other philanthropic interests, so the code is made generally
> > > > >available. No one ever seems to buy these. On the other hand, most employers
> > > > >are suspicious of people who are still in school.
> > > > >
> > > > >I hope you all reach your own conclusions, but I suspect that what is needed is
> > > > >for the balance between free and commercial software to stabilize. When it is
> > > > >established that free software development can be done while playing by the
> > > > >same rules that industry plays by (higher standards, actually, I'd hope),
> > > > >and that these rules can only be enforced as well or as poorly as the
> > > > >commercial case, things should settle down. Dispite some radicial free software
> > > > >developers, most of them have no desire to be a threat to any reasonably
> > > > >honest business (and if they are threat to dishonest business, only because
> > > > >dishonesty doesn't pay).
> > > > >
> > > > >-scott
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On  0, Bill Nash <billn at billn.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 extramail at cox.net wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>><my 2 cents>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Funny, I interviewed with them 2 years ago. Sounds like they have
> > > > >>>changed a little because one of the things they did for me is sit me
> > > > >>>down and bring up a pretty narly porno pic. They wanted to know if that
> > > > >>>really offended me because I would probably be running into it.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>In general, while they had some cool artwork, I didn't get a good feeling from the place.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>></my 2 cents>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>Considering the customer base, that's really a decent litmus test, all
> > > > >>things considered. Programmers, engineers, even marketing, they deal with
> > > > >>porn. If that's something you can't handle on a daily basis, then don't.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I've been through their interview process as well (although I didn't get
> > > > >>to see any porn, wtf?) I've seen the IP docs of which you speak, and I
> > > > >>asked a lot of the same questions, and the answers you got seem to be
> > > > >>different than the ones I got, likely because the document has been
> > > > >>revised since then. Your concerns are well founded, and it's good to see
> > > > >>people looking out for themselves, especially developers who don't want
> > > > >>their work sucked under a corporate umbrella.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The long and short of the IP documents they presented, and how to keep
> > > > >>your work out of an employer's IP space (Note, I am not a lawyer, please
> > > > >>consult yours.):
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1. Declare your side projects, in writing. So long as none of them are in
> > > > >>competition with your prospective employer's primary (or even secondary)
> > > > >>mission, then you're likely in the clear. Get their legal folks to sign
> > > > >>off on a written statement of work for each project, as non-conflicting /
> > > > >>non-infringing, and you're good to go. Bring them up during the interview
> > > > >>process.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>2. Work is work, personal is personal, and never the twain shall meet.
> > > > >>Establish *clear* and *hard* boundaries on work you are paid to do, and
> > > > >>work you're doing outside of the company context. This means no coding for
> > > > >>the company on your home box, and no logging into your home box from the
> > > > >>office to tinker with something because you had an idea. The term 'work
> > > > >>for hire' applies to *everything* you do while you're on the clock.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>3. If you want to contribute something you are working on to the open
> > > > >>source community, simply ask before you pour a lot of time into it, unless
> > > > >>you have to do it anyway. An example: In a previous position developing
> > > > >>Network Management tools for a major ISP, the work I was doing dealt
> > > > >>directly with our primary product, and a community release of my toolset
> > > > >>would have been potentially damaging to our company's profitability, by
> > > > >>giving tools to the competition. So long as what you want to release would
> > > > >>not offer a competitor an advantage in your particular space, then it's
> > > > >>entirely possible it could be kosher.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Yes, you should absolutely be taking steps to protect yourself.
> > > > >>Conversely, don't be too quick to assume a company is evil and out to
> > > > >>get your work. Everything is open to negotiation. Pre-declared conditions
> > > > >>to employment will often save you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>- billn
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>I interviewed with them. I think a few people - Doug and Kurt -
> > > > >>>>heard the story. Perhaps they have mellowed out a bit, but they wanted
> > > > >>>>me to sign a document that stated that I had no intellectual property,
> > > > >>>>and I assigned all of my IP to them. I got the interview partially because
> > > > >>>>of free software programming I had done, and when I asked about this,
> > > > >>>>they got their lawyers over to "help clarify", and surely enough, I
> > > > >>>>couldn't sign the contract because I would be making a false statement,
> > > > >>>>as I couldn't retract the code I've released.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Anyone going down there should be aware of this and read the contracts
> > > > >>>>carefully and evaluate your priorities. If you keep your mouth shut,
> > > > >>>>there probably would be no problems, but a lot of people don't like
> > > > >>>>being "owned".
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>It seemed like a really nice outfit with nice people. Techies are well
> > > > >>>>reguarded and respected in the company, and you'd have to see the
> > > > >>>>building - very artistic - and the other programmers and people on
> > > > >>>>tech support seemed very cool. This could be a great job for someone
> > > > >>>>more interested in the business side of software than the hobby side.
> > > > >>>>If you're thinking about it, pay a visit to their website. The industry
> > > > >>>>is interesting. Final note - if you set up a website that accepts
> > > > >>>>payments through ccbill, one of their tech guys (seperate bay
> > > > >>>>than the programmers, though I don't know which this post is for)
> > > > >>>>ssh's in and sets up the perl scripting for the webmaster, including
> > > > >>>>setting up the redirect, forms, and such. You may find yourself
> > > > >>>>working on websites you normally wouldn't be looking at.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>2 cents and that.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>-scott
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>On  0, Jacob Powers <jpowers at ccbill.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>------_=_NextPart_001_01C39A50.23DD2E9D
> > > > >>>>>Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > > >>>>>	charset="us-ascii"
> > > > >>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Software Developer
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>CCBill, a leader in online e-commerce transactions, is currently looking
> > > > >>>>>for a Software Developer.
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>Job Description: Writes and tests code written from specification
> > > > >>>>>provided by engineers and prototyping. Works under the guidance of team
> > > > >>>>>leads to deliver fully functional and tested software for both internal
> > > > >>>>>and external clients.
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>Requirements:
> > > > >>>>>*	Strong understanding of programming concepts and best practices.
> > > > >>>>>*	Excellent PERL and SQL programming skills.
> > > > >>>>>*	Object oriented PERL knowledge.
> > > > >>>>>*	Experience using Linux/Unix OS and the VI editor.
> > > > >>>>>*	Ability to thoroughly test and troubleshoot code.
> > > > >>>>>*	Experience using HTML and JavaScript to build web applications.
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>Following Skills a Plus:
> > > > >>>>>*	Java, PHP, and C/C++ knowledge.
> > > > >>>>>*	Apache experience.
> > > > >>>>>*	MySQL experience.
> > > > >>>>>*	Database design.
> > > > >>>>>*	Shell scripting.
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>CCBill offers a wide range of benefits, competitive pay and a casual
> > > > >>>>>work environment. All interested applicants should send your resume,
> > > > >>>>>cover letter and references to jpowers at ccbill.com=20
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>For more information please see our website www.ccbill.com or email us
> > > > >>>>>at the above address.
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>Jacob Powers
> > > > >>>>>Project Manager
> > > > >>>>>CCBill.com
> > > > >>>>>=20
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>