[LRUG] Looking to meet...

[Michael Pavling]

tl;dr  Thanks for the assurances that the OP was genuine. Please bear
in mind that we don't all know each other personally, and so don't
necessarily get all the subtle individual tones of communication from
a post at first read (are emoticons too nineties now? ;-)
There's no sense shouting down those who are only trying to warn
others not to get their fingers burnt, while at the same time invoking
minswan at us.
Peace (I've never signed an email like that before... I'm not sure it
sounds like me :-)



On 14 September 2011 15:07, Chris Parsons <chris.p at rsons.org> wrote:
> Yes, he is being subtly ironic :)
> Ben's a great guy to work with... technology. You'd do a lot worse that to work with him

Cool. Thanks for the first-hand info.

On 14 September 2011 15:18, Paul Battley <pbattley at gmail.com> wrote:
> … in which we discover that LRUG does not understand tongue-in-cheek humour.

Or sincere requests for clarification?!

On 14 September 2011 18:52, James Adam <james at lazyatom.com> wrote:
> Ben's reputation (disclaimer: I have worked in teams he's worked with and know him quite well) should at the very least be enough to reassure you that he isn't going to be pulling the dick move suggested in Michael's original reply:

Which is exactly why I asked whether the OP was a pi$$ take, or
genuine. (Lots of people *do* pull the "dick move" I posited)

<anecdote>I have worked at fab, groovy start ups, with "beer fridges"
and fussball tables. At one, the directors are all now millionaires,
and they're still laying people off. I left a few years ago a few
hundred thousand pounds worse off than "promised" - I might as well
have been working flipping burgers for the time rather than applying
the professional skills we're all trying to obtain.</anecdote>

> On 14 Sep 2011, at 13:01, Michael Pavling wrote:
>> "Is this *really* a pitch for "make me money for nothing in return"? :-/
>
> Michael, I don't know where you got this idea; it's not how I read Ben's email at all.

Fair enough. I read it with a background bell ringing in my head. The
general dream of start ups is to go viral and sell for $$$ (I'm
moderately acquainted with a couple who have just sold their 15-person
company to an MS subsiduary... they're trying to decide which island
to buy :-D
So the suggestion that a person setting up a start up may not be
planning to share any of this windfall with the initial crew doing the
majority of the slog is a bit worrying - it's nice to discover this
*isn't* one of those occasions.

> Sure, the salary might not be as much as you can make building CMS-powered mini sites for soulless brand agencies

TBH, I've found that those places are generally both soul-destroying
_and_ some of the worst for expecting work for free :-(

> or whatever you're basing "market rate" on

I'm sorry to be really dull about this... but lots of people are
throwing this back at me. I didn't introduce the phrase. The OP says
"All on a lower-than-market salary with no perks". I'm happy to base
it on the same thing that the OP bases it on.

> but some people may have different priorities which are equally valid. Everyone can agree on that, I hope.

yup - I certainly agree.

> I trust Ben is doing the best he can to remunerate (in whatever form) the people he's hoping to employ. Now you can choose to trust me, or you can get to know Ben yourself, or neither.

Or both?! ;-)

> But, rather than continuing to work up a froth about the "injustice of being asked to work for pennies" (which as far as I can tell seems to baseless here), perhaps those sufficiently interested or enraged individuals can get in touch with Ben directly for some concrete remuneration information

a) I'm not in any particular froth (you'll have to take my word for
that... the smilies just don't cut it)
b) It's based on first-hand finger-burning. If you or others prefer to
learn from your own mistakes, then that is fine too (but please trust
me, you'll have both more fun and more recompense in both money *and*
the intangible benefits if you don't waste time rediscovering
everything from scratch)
c) Consider if Ben wasn't the nice guy he actually is - his replies to
any direct requests may beguile me, and not serve to raise any
awareness with others. I'm happy to raise it on-list even if it proves
to make myself look a bit mean (which I'm not... well, I probably am;
but it other ways)

> perhaps that will be a better way of addressing concerns than tilting at windmills here.

Hopefully, I've made it a bit clearer that I wasn't attempting to rock
boats. On such a wide mailing list, it's reasonable to expect that not
everyone has a first-hand relationship with the OP. So if one does,
it's easy to read the tone and subtext. But if not, it's very easy to
read in miriad ways.

This goes the same for my posts, and a couple of others that seem to
be saying the same sort of thing as me. There do seem to be a few
backs raised at a perceived personal affront - if you had first-hand
knowledge of me, you would *know* that wasn't the case, but I'm happy
to try to explain rather than raise hackles in return.
Bear in mind that the voice in your head you read emails with is your
own; so if any "nastiness" is read in my words, please read it again
with a happy voice, and you'll get closer to my intended message :-)

On 14 September 2011 21:47, Ben Griffiths <bengriffiths at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh boy.
>
> Blimey, this mailing list is much nastier and more hostile than it
> used to be. Where are the nice people hanging out these days?

?? Sorry Ben, but I really don't see anyone being especially nasty.
Well, maybe a few of the replies to my post have been a bit
confrontational, but it's nothing I'd worry about... was it those you
were referring to?

> Sorry if I offended you, Paul and Michael, by somehow suggesting I'd
> pay you with stale dog biscuits and wafer crumbs. I'm fine with you
> not getting in touch.

See... you didn't understand my reply the same way I didn't understand
your OP. This pesky medium of email is a dreadful communication tool.
We lose all tone and body language.
I'm glad you've taken the time to expand though.

> I'm sure you're right about me being 'frankly
> unprofessional', by the way.

I never said that... please don't use a "one tar brush fits all" approach.

> Everyone else: putting the tongue-in-cheek aside, I'm looking for
> junior-mid range developers to join an interesting London-based
> start-up. It's very early days, so this is a call for CVs and
> collaborators who would be interested in working, learning and
> experiencing the early heady days of a start-up.

I do wish you all the best with your endeavour. I *wish* I were in a
position to offer up-and-coming developers the chance to cut their
teeth, to progress and to do all the clichés with their feet in doors
and on ladders. <*sigh* re-reading that line; it's so easy to take it
as sarcasm... it's not - honestly. Give me a bell, and I'll say it
again, then you can decide>

> Of course you'll be paid, and well

?? That's not what you said in the OP?! Which is the *only* reason I
raised the point! very confusing...

> From this thread you'll have seen some of the people who've worked for
> me before and what they have to say about me - don't let the trolls
> put you off.

Now *that* is being nasty, Ben :-(
There's nothing trolling about my post - I did't cross-post to 'London
.Net UG' asking which language would win in a fight. I raised a
legitimate (if I may say so myself) query regarding an
ambiguous-to-interpret post from a total stranger. Now, I appreciate a
circle of your acquaitences may read your emails differently, and it
was to those people that I originally asked about your post. Calling
names is just not a great solution.
ATB

On 15 September 2011 09:39, Ronny Ager-Wick <ronny at ager-wick.com> wrote:
> What's this "market salary" bullshit anyway? I thought this was a group for
> professionals, but it sounds like a .NET group...

Again... "market salary" is a phrase used in the OP.
Ask your plumber whether he's a professional, and will work for less
than market rate - they tend to get grumpy at that :-(

On 15 September 2011 10:40, James Adam <james at lazyatom.com> wrote:
> If you want to discuss a specific case of exploitation, that's fine, but it's grossly unfair of you to hijack a thread without any reason to assume something similar is going on. Whatever situation you are pointing it, it's certainly not the one described in the first email in this thread.

Do you think, James, that had that exact same post come not from Ben,
but from someone you'd never heard of, that you might have treated it
slightly more sceptically?

On 14 September 2011 15:07, Chris Parsons <chris.p at rsons.org> wrote:
> Yes, he is being subtly ironic :)
> Ben's a great guy to work with... technology. You'd do a lot worse that to work with him

Yup, I know I've already replied to this one, but I just want to say
again: thanks, Chris. That was all I was asking :-)

Regards to all,
Michael