Hi,Copying everyone, since this remark isn't specific to the email below - we have all slipped on the subject recently (including myself), and I wanted to take the occasion to bring it up with everyone. The volume of private emails and conversations is getting high, and I think we need to pay attention to this if we want to hold true to our promise of transparency and be able to properly include players. If we don't take the right habits now, it will become harder and harder to get back on track afterwards.
Would it be ok to have those conversations directly on the buddypress in the future? With direct emails the exchanges get lost, others can't read them even if they wanted to, they aren't archived, and it doesn't help to adopt the right habits.
When the buddypress isn't practical, for example when exchanging with another project, an occasional contractor, a supplier, etc. can you keep [email protected] in CC, so that it remains public too?
I know it's not always an intuitive behavior, but it's not very costly, and it will make a world of difference for the community. : ) Thanks for them ;p
Xavier. On 07/05/2011 03:52 PM, Adolfo R. Brandes wrote:
Hi Blancard! As foreseen, here are my comments. :) There are only three: 1) Article 2. "Any delay in delivery, that is to say, the non-conforming completion of the Task, will give rise to a financial penalty of an amount equal to the price of this Task (...)" I understand this is an incentive to finish tasks on time and on spec (especially given that both time and spec are previously agreed upon), but don't you think that an actual finantial penalty is a bit too much? How about something along the lines of "the Provider shall forfeit his rights to future assigment of tasks until the aforementioned non-conforming task is completed as specified"? 2) Article 2. "The number of monthly Orders that the Client and the Provider commit to is equivalent to 20 working days." vs Article 4. "The Client undertakes to provide a minimum of 4 Tasks per month." This seems like it's just an oversight. Article 2 guarantees 20 working days, but Article 4 guarantees 4 tasks, with the inferrable assumption (from other paragraphs) that it is 4 days. Shouldn't the measures be the same? 3) Mootness of previous contract(s). I don't know the proper legalese for this, but I believe there should be a provision to make moot any previous contracts between the parties, explicitly saying that this one is the valid one from the date of signature. And just to clear the water, these are really minor points, if I believed we'd ever come down to them, I don't think either of us would even be discussing them. :) Thanks! Adolfo On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM, david blanchard<[email protected]> wrote:Hey Adolfo, attached the draft for the full time job. It's the same basis as the previous one with additional elements. I'm sure you'll have some comments ;), so take the time you need to read it and then we can work on the final elements together. Cheers, David PS : I did not include the part about the taxes limited to 2 months in the contract because I don't think it fits in. The agreement we had on the chat regarding this is totally enough for me.
-- Xavier.
<<attachment: xavier.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Farsides mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://farsides.com/ List: http://farsides.com/ml/ Forum: http://farsides.com/forum/ Ideas: http://farsides.com/ideas/ Chat: http://farsides.com/chat/
