8 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
I'm still not sure why this is all accepted as truth. The statement basically boils down to this: "We know we've apologized and promised but not delivered before. Here's an apology and more promises."
If instead of more lies, they wanted to come clean and start saying truth, how would it look different than what was said here? I'm fully aware that their past actions make it more difficult to trust what they say today, but the language and the framing are fairly consistent with what I'd expect from someone who had been screwing up majorly, got caught on it, and wanted to fix things. Of course, if they wanted to lie (or if they wanted to tell an optimistic wanna-be-truth, only to fail later, which I think is a more charitable way to look at it and something that I can relate to personally from my own shortcomings) it would probably be constructed to sound basically the same.
However, I asked if there's a backlog--that is, a list of features to be implemented, in small, consumable detail--with time-estimates. Most places that make software, do this. If they are actually, really planning to make this software, and they know enough about the production time to know it's going to take more than 6 months, then (either it's all a lie/stall-tactic or) there is a roadmap of some kind with features and time estimates. It might not be as precise as a backlog, but most devs will not commit to a multi-month timeframe for a project without breaking it down into smaller parts and estimating them.
So ... what does it look like? I feel like opening this up at some level is a critical step for restoring the trust that has been busted up so many times in the past.
Comment by sickhippie at 06/07/2015 at 20:55 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
However, I asked if there's a backlog--that is, a list of features to be implemented, in small, consumable detail--with time-estimates.
I would be absolutely *thrilled* at a 6 month project roadmap, because it would provide the one thing that we haven't been offered (and the one thing we actually want) - an administration that's accountable. That would be a great first step.
I wouldn't say no to an enumeration of what exactly they felt their "mistakes" were, so we could say "that's not quite why we're upset" or "yes, at least we know you get it this time". That's actually the main reason I think the apology is bullshit - it sounds too much like a "sorry I got caught again" I'd get from my 12 year old trying to avoid getting grounded after getting caught for the 5th time.
Comment by sirbruce at 07/07/2015 at 00:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well, first, they'd have to admit they lied before. Not just, "We misunderestimated the amount of work we had to do" but instead "We told you what you wanted to hear because we wanted the blackout to end."
Second, they'd then have to accept the consequences of that. The blackout gets reinstated until they provide some new concession, not just new promises.
Third, whoever it was the lied or whoever made them lie will have to resign/get fired for doing so.