Board index » delphi » Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test


2007-02-12 05:23:00 AM
delphi62
David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
I've stated quite clearly that signing such an NDA provides a club
(or tool, if you prefer) such that CodeGear COULD go after an
individual for discussion of released product, IF THAT ASPECT OF THE
PRODUCT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED DURING THE BETA TEST.
Sorry, that is not correct.
For those folks other than David who are reading this, please realize
that David is saying that the NDA restricts things that the NDA
explicitly does not restrict.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
Quote
No, that isn't true. Dave is no TeamB, and therefore under NDA with
us. that is no secret.
Er.. I think you mean "on" <g>
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Where do you get such an idea? There is no NDA that can legally stop
you from talking about public information or anything that can
obviously be discovered publicly - like some previously known bug
still being a bug. Nothing in the NDA stops you from discussing known
bugs or making public bugs you've discovered yourself in the release
version of a product.
That's exactly correct.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
Quote

Again, if you don't want to sign the NDA, then you don't have to. We
all agree to that. But I don't think it is unreasonable of me to ask
you to speak correctly about the NDA and what I have said about it.

Okay, fine. it is not in the NDA. Please post the link to it so that it
can be reviewed.
David Erbas-White
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Dave Nottage [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Er.. I think you mean "on" <g>
Doh! (How's that for a Freudian slip? ;-)
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
Okay, fine. it is not in the NDA.
Great, thanks for recognizing that. I appreciate it.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
You can come up with your own scenarios, but this one is real-world,
with the same personnel, with the same (VCL-based) product line.
Here I must just in, as that is simply incorrect.
CBuilderX was not a VCL-based product - in fact that was quite a big
issue at the time, utimately leading to CBuilder2006 being a very
different product again.
The management team behind the CBuilderX change of direction are no
longer with either Borland or CodeGear, and have not been for some time.
The current Delphi product manager who's blog post kicked off this
thread did not work for Borland (now CodeGear) at the time.
THere is every chance that the people you are addressing here don't
even understand the issues-that-you-cannot-discuss, they simply weren't
with the company back then.
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] writes:
Quote
The management team behind the CBuilderX change of direction are no
longer with either Borland or CodeGear, and have not been for some
time.
This is true: none of the management team that was involved with
CBuilderX is with either CodeGear or Borland anymore. They are all
gone, and thus no longer have any say over how anything is run.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote
David Erbas-White writes:
>My primary 'concern' is with the restrictions of the NDA living on
>after the product release. To me, that is a deal-breaker.

Why? Why is it necessary that you be able to tell the world you were on a
Delphi field test? that is all that lives on after - which of course includes
any information you could only have due to being in the FT.
This might prove of interest to an employer to know that one of his
employee has good contacts with a provider.
As it turns out, mine asked me if I had any news of what is going on at
CodeGear, especially since the French news are rare and inaccurate. But
because I don't have any information, I was not able to reassure him.
And even if I had by being a member of any field test, I could not
possibly tell him. That would be a potentially uneasy situation for me
as I'd have to hide information from him which could be a reason for
firing me.
In the end, I don't have any such information, so it is fine for me, but
the above situation might be true for others.
--
Olivier Sannier
JVCL Coordinator
jvcl.sf.net/
Find more about me on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/obones
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

In article <45cf8934$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
says...
Quote
David Erbas-White writes:

>I've stated quite clearly that signing such an NDA provides a club
>(or tool, if you prefer) such that CodeGear COULD go after an
>individual for discussion of released product, IF THAT ASPECT OF THE
>PRODUCT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED DURING THE BETA TEST.

Sorry, that is not correct.

For those folks other than David who are reading this, please realize
that David is saying that the NDA restricts things that the NDA
explicitly does not restrict.
Scenario (I think the sort of thing David has in mind):
Programmer B (not under NDA): Hey I found a bug in the released product
- can we get it fixed?
Programmer A (under NDA): Yep, we found that during the field test but
it can not be fixed because.......
Q for Nick: Programmer A will not be at any risk of censure or liablity
what-so-ever?
My guess is that the response will be that Programmer A can discuss the
problem as it relates to the PRODUCT, but cannot mention the discovery
or resolution (or lack of same) during the FIELD TEST.
But since Programmer A would have nothing to offer WITHOUT mentioning
the FIELD TEST, they are effectively LESS able to discuss the problem
than Programmer B, who is completely free to discuss whatever
discoveries or insights they find in investigating the (hypothetical)
problem. Programmer A cannot contribute anything they learned during
field test.
I can not see that this is a huge problem in and of itself: Programmer
simply keeps stum or adds "Me too!", and Programmer B and the rest of
the non-NDA community has to deal with it as they would with any other
problem not previously encountered during field test.
Either the community will find the same, or different, issues in the
PRODUCT that are found during FIELD TEST, but either way CodeGear are
aware of and able to deal with those issues, and I don't see that they
would be dealt with any more or less quickly or efficiently as a result.
i.e. it is an issue of transparency and openness, not efficacy of the
field test, that is at stake.
And I guess (apologies if inccorrect) that is the nub of David's concern
- i.e. the supposed philosophical differences expounded by CG as
compared to their previous Borland incarnation, rather than any
practical concern.
+0.02 for what t's worth
--
Jolyon Smith
Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

If anyone has a boss that they'd like to add, or co-workers, that's
great, too.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
So if Programmer A and Programmer B are both working on Project X,
and they haven't been able to submit their problem code to CodeGear
because of its proprietary nature, Programmer A can not even let
Programmer B, or their supervisor, know that a possible solution may
be at hand (or, conversely, that no solution is forthcoming).
Not entirely correct, although I agree quite likely.
You cannot break NDA cover **without CodeGear's permission** so if you
could make a really strong case why you should be able to reassure
party B in some way, CodeGear may give you that permission.
I am not going to suggest it is likely, merely possible!
The binding part of the NDA is that you cannot exercise that decision
yourself, and you get a double-bind if you have a parallel NDA with
party B - assuming you are prepared to sign those sorts of agreements!
Another option here would be to ask CodeGear to invite party B onto the
field test as well ...
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] writes:
Quote
David Erbas-White writes:

>You can come up with your own scenarios, but this one is real-world,
>with the same personnel, with the same (VCL-based) product line.

Here I must just in, as that is simply incorrect.

CBuilderX was not a VCL-based product - in fact that was quite a big
issue at the time, utimately leading to CBuilder2006 being a very
different product again.
Folks were told that the next version of the C++ Builder product was
being worked on. Folks were told that a migration path was going to be
provided (originally purported to be wxWidgets) from C++ Builder to CBX.
Folks 'bought in' to the CBX beta under the guise that it was the 'next
iteration' of C++ Builder -- which turned out to be farther from the
truth than even Borland thought it was. Many/most of those who signed
up for the beta test were under the distinct impression that they were
doing a beta-test of C++ Builder (I certainly was under that impression,
and despite what some of you may think, I am not a COMPLETE idiot <G>).
Quote

The management team behind the CBuilderX change of direction are no
longer with either Borland or CodeGear, and have not been for some time.

One of the individuals directly involved with the interactions related
to this debacle was John Kaster. At various times I am told he's a
developer, other times I am told he's management. I have also been told
that despite the fact that his title was that of 'Developer Relations'
that he wasn't really supposed to be doing 'Developer Relations'. So,
I'll cut to the chase -- John Kaster was involved in the CBX debacle,
and John Kaster is currently involved with CodeGear and the Delphi
product line. Split any hairs you like.
Quote
The current Delphi product manager who's blog post kicked off this
thread did not work for Borland (now CodeGear) at the time.

I didn't say that he did. Thanks for the straw man.
Quote
THere is every chance that the people you are addressing here don't
even understand the issues-that-you-cannot-discuss, they simply weren't
with the company back then.

Just one more example of how this NDA nonsense can go too far. Thus,
your statement could be read as "CodeGear may well make the same
mistakes that Borland made, since nobody can freely discuss what those
mistakes were, and none of the CodeGear people were with Borland at the
time."
David Erbas-White
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Jolyon Smith writes:
Quote
Scenario (I think the sort of thing David has in mind):

Programmer B (not under NDA): Hey I found a bug in the released
product - can we get it fixed?

Programmer A (under NDA): Yep, we found that during the field test
but it can not be fixed because.......


Q for Nick: Programmer A will not be at any risk of censure or
liablity what-so-ever?
Programmer A would be at risk if they mention any information that was
private to the field test, including their participation.
It seems the problem is understanding that Programmer A is free to
discuss anything about the field test that is *public*.
For example, a new feature may have been added that only those who have
the released product would know about. Programmer A may have known
about it during the field test (and was itching to tell the world about
it), however once the product is released, they can discuss the feature
all they want as long as the information they discuss has been made
public ie they can not say, for example "during the field test Mr X
suggested it be done this way".
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
Quote
If anyone has a boss that they'd like to add, or co-workers, that's
great, too.
Using a company (rather than individual) NDA is possible, right?
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]