Laura, You may want to consider temporarily removing the contract and maybe even the entire claiming feature while you're sorting this out.
Why continue to ask developers to agree to something that you don't agree with yourself, and continue to tick off developers? It may be a prudent approach to relaunch that part of the service once all the ducks are in a row. Besides, the Twitter lawyers may also have something to say about the contract. Dewald On Oct 9, 2:05 am, Pistachio <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility > for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. > It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers > had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not > received adverse feedback. > > We're listening. We're learning. > > Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of > the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. > > To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI > community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the > claiming terms from the resale terms. > > One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that > will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work > that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with > developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on > that. > > I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers > because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, > Twitter, IRC... > > We will be working hard to earn your trust and to discover how we can > better serve. > > Warmly, > Laura Fitton > [email protected] > > (sent from @pistachio: RT @dwroelands @oneforty needs to change their > developer contract #onefortycontracthttp://bit.ly/DgM40//we're > seeking feedback) > > On Oct 8, 10:21 pm, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't > > launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties > > until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU > > are offering to the outside world. > > > There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your > > contract, or you don't publish it. Period. > > > ∞ Andy Badera > > ∞+1 518-641-1280 > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > "OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform." > > > > I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions > > > with > > > Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear > > > that > > > they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, > > > and it takes time to dial it back. > > > > And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We > > > don't > > > have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was > > > working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. > > > > Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team > > > time > > > to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make > > > something good here. > > > > -- ivey > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two > > >> members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my > > >> application from the directory. > > > >> They refused. > > > >> OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. > > > >> On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! > > > >> > On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethedeveloper > > >> > > contract also raised some eyebrows. > > > >> > > Dewald > > > >> > > On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will > > >> > > > mean > > >> > > > for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to > > >> > > > claim > > >> > > > your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we > > >> > > > decided to read the fine print. > > > >> > > > Please see read the contract for yourself > > >> > > > (http://oneforty.com/terms/ > > >> > > > publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// > > >> > > > squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your > > >> > > > comments! > > > >> > > > Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > discussion!
