[foundation-board] Iconomical Situation

Fri Feb 4 12:57:51 UTC 2011

On 04/02/2011 12:01, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> On 4 February 2011 10:55, Jo Walsh<metazool at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> the key issue was the maintainable state
>> of the source code

> That isn't the *key* issue. The key issue is, as I described:
> a) does the code even build, does it have a readme
> b) what about issues with the code.

Right, that's what I meant by maintainable state of the code.

Dave popped onto Skype briefly and said the following about what steps 
Iconomical will take to make sure other OKF contractors can work with 
their code:

"we'll supply a detailed readme explaining the architecture, how things 
are structured, how to do things ... i'll also spend time reworking the 
build system so it uses the open source flex sdk, and not flex builder 
... i'm looking at a day, maybe two....i can also do some internal 
cleanup... we're offering to spend even more time for nothing."

So there does seem to be some goodwill remaining, if only a little.
 From their perspective there is a reluctance to make payment 
*conditional* on release of the code, especially when the prospect of 
non-payment has been raised with them.

> a) The agreement was for code to be open-sourced going forward (from
> July agreement) (I had constantly asked for this from Dave but was
> told he was too busy and accepted this in good faith ...)

Iconomical did an open source release at the end of stage 1.
Not a final product but presumably a good faith gesture?

> This is now wasting so much of everyone's time that it is probably
> best to just pay them and move on but I'm *really* unimpressed by
> their behaviour here.

Don't worry about my time here. I should have pressed harder for both 
Iconomical and OKF to reconsider and develop a Plan B back in the 
summer.  But please do move to resolve this soon.

jo
--