OT: Jeremy Anderson (was RE: filePro Wikipedia page)

[Fairlight]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:52:59PM -0400, after drawing runes in goat's blood,
Kenneth Brody cast forth these immortal, mystical words:
> 
> While you're there, be sure to check out the "nastygram" from Sue Rubin,
> which he includes in its entirety (AFAIK).  It's on the same domain as
> his anti-filePro page, but under "/fptech_nastygram.html"  Now, perhaps
> I'm a bit biased, but I wonder if anyone here sees anything "nasty" or
> "intimidating" about the letter?

>From what I took away from it, it was the principle of Sue not responding
directly to him, but instead making an "end run" (my words) around him to
talk to his superiors.

On principle, if I'm dealing with an issue for someone, either while
employed by them, or while under contract to do so, my employer or
contracting party expects me to do it and they do not want to be bothered
with the issue.

I'd be rather annoyed if I tried to bring something up and met with a
run-around as well, quite possibly to people that weren't technically
conversant with the issue at hand.  There's generally a reason -I- am
asked to look into something, rather than my superiors, whatever their
position, and I expect to be dealt with directly when I ask a direct
question or bring up a salient issue.  Especially true if that's what
someone is -paying- me to do.

For someone to make an end run around one person (for any reason) and go to
the very people paying that person to handle something, thus potentially
making them look like they can't do their job...is something I feel is
unacceptable.  You deal with the point of contact that indicates there's
an issue, whether it's publicly or privately, not go around them.  I
personally consider what was done to be bad form.  Frankly (and no offense
to Sue), the tone of Sue's letter smacked of desperation.  To me, it had
overtones of not being able to lose another customer, combined with not
wanting the collateral damage in the community.  While I can see someone
in a position of desperation on either point feeling more likely to get
results from management than the trenches, it's still impolite to a degree
to handle it the way it was (from the appearances related on his site,
which may or may not be accurate and faithful renditions).  It does the
people in the trenches a disservice no matter how ignorant they may or may
not be.

While this may have been an effort by Sue at damage control considering
there was a "loose cannon" going off somewhere, I can at least understand
someone being greatly annoyed with the act on principle--whether they know
what they're talking about or not.  I know I would be, based on exactly
what I related above.

No, I don't think there was anything -nasty- about Sue's response.  I do
think it was a bit indecorously handled overall, however--even if the
guy was a complete pain to deal with.  Unless there's a legal issue like
slander or libel to deal with, the CEO likely should not have been involved
at that stage, I shouldn't think.  And the letter indicated nothing of the
sort.  Assuming the representation was accurate, of course.  The people to
talk to are the ones having (real or fictional) issues with the software,
not management--who may have been almost entirely out of the loop.

Like I said, not nasty--just something I don't see as properly handled
(probably on either side, although he conspicuously leaves out the context
in which it was sent).  And it looks like he felt it was either retaliatory
or an end-run, and approached it as such.  I can't say I blame him on that
one point, especially if he was the one made responsible for 'x' issue at
his organisation.  Then it'd be pretty much like getting blindsided when
it comes at you from the entirely opposite direction one is expecting, I
should imagine.  I know I wouldn't take it particularly quietly, although
it would be far different than his approach if I had to respond to it.

Not that naming Sue directly was proper.  It wasn't.  And it's a pity that
her name is out there attached to this incident when (TTBOMK) she's no
longer even with the company.

mark->