An short-lived international coalition that barely survived to site launch, the project was interesting because of its requirement that its mission statement be displayed in half a dozen languages, include left-to-right set Hebrew and Arabic and Nepalese!
Quaker Ranter
A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley
Monthly Archives ⇒ April 2007
Words and reason fail when faced with such horror
April 17, 2007
It’s hard to know what to say about yesterday’s horrific massacre at Virginia Tech, where a gunman killed 32 people (at latest count) in two separate incidents. Is this an indictment of an American culture of violence? Virginia Tech has a strong military tradition, so is our war mentality to blame? Guns?, can we blame guns? Or how about the alienation of so many young people in our society?
Any answer seems glib and besides the point. This isn’t the time to be a pundit. People snap for all sorts of reasons and usually for multiple reasons that can never really be untangled.
Like all humans, I’m shocked and saddened. I’ve spent time on the campus and the students and faculty I met were always warm and hospitable, gracious and open. What must they be going through? Think of the fear of the trapped students, the fear of parents turning on the news, the fear of survivors who will have to live with the memories of this nightmare for the rest of their lives. I add my humble words to the millions of prayers that have been murmured these last twenty-four hours. May God comfort the victims alive and dead, including the shooter, who must certainly be a victim of something himself.
How do we stop the violence? How do we show our youth that violence is not the way? And how do we get these damned guns out of their hands?
On pricing philosophy
April 16, 2007
Via 37Signal’s Signals vs. Noise blog I came across a fascinating post written by Brian Fling of Blue last year on pricing a project. I’d like to talk about it and to explain my own philosophy. First a extended quote from Brian:
I find it funny… in a sad sort of way, that we often
start out our partnership with bluffing, no one saying what they are
really thinking… how much they are willing to pay and how much it
should cost… Though every book I’ve read on the topic of pricing says
to never ever ballpark, I have a tendency to do so. If they can’t
disclose the budget I typically try to start throwing a few numbers
from previous projects to help gauge the scope of what we are talking
about, call it a good faith effort to start the discussion… While this
is very awkward part of the discussion it is almost always followed by
candor. It’s as if once someone starts telling the truth, it opens a
door that can’t be closed.
I completely agree that candor is the only way to work with clients.
Maybe it’s the Quaker influence: we reportedly pioneered fixed pricing
back when everyone haggled, with the philosophy that charging true
costs were the only honest way of doing business. My official rates and contact page includes my list of “typical costs” — essentially these are the “ballpark estimates” that Brian talks about.
When I put together estimates I base it on my best-guess informed
estimates. I start by tabulating the client’s requested features and
determining how I’ll achieve them. I then estimate how long it will
take me to implement each feature and use that to determine a
first-guess for project cost. I then compare it to past projects, to
make sure I’m being realistic. I know myself well enough to know I
always want to underestimate costs – I usually like the project and want
to make it affordable to clients! – so I do force myself a reality check
that usually ends up adding a few hours to the estimate.
When I put together my official estimate I try to guess where
potential bottlenecks might happen. Sometimes these are technical
issues and something they’re more social. For example, a client might
be very particular about the design and the back-and-forth can take
longer than expected. If I think anything like this might happen I
mention it in the estimate. Sometimes as we work through the details of
a feature I’ll learn that the client wants some enhancement that we
hadn’t talked about previously and which I didn’t factor into the
estimate.
When I do see a particular part of the work taking longer than
expected I flag it with the client. I try to keep them informed that
this will add to total costs. In many cases, clients have been happy to
go with the extra work: I simply want to make sure that we both are
aware that the estimate is changing before the work happens.
I charge by the hour rather than on a per-project basis since I find
it to be a much more open business model. Brian Fling’s post agrees:
The problem [with per-project billing is that] one way
or another somebody loses, either the client pays too much, meaning
paying more than it’s market value, or the vendor eats into their
profit… One benefits to hourly billing is the client is responsible for
increases of scope, protecting the vendor and the customer. If the
project is completed early the client pays less, protecting the client.
This puts the onus on both parties to communicate regularly and work
more effectively.
I have very little overhead: a home office, laptop and DSL.
This means my rates are very competitive (one client described it as
“less than plumbers and electricians charge, more than the kid who mows
the lawn”). Being very careful with estimates mean that I often
communicate a lot with clients before I “start the clock.” I’ve often
worked with them a few hours before the estimate is in and we’re moving
forward and of course some of this un-billed work doesn’t result in a
job.
Putting together fabulous websites is fun work. It’s very much a
back-and-forth process with clients, and it’s often impossible to know
just what the site will look like and just how it will work until the
site actually launches. Half of my clientele have never had websites
before, making the work even more interesting! It’s my professional
responsibility to make sure I work with clients to foresee costs, dream
big, but most of all to be open and honest about costs as the process
unfolds.
Too-familiar buildings on the news
April 16, 2007
It’s chilly to see the breaking headlines about the shooting at Virginia Tech, already being billed as the “deadliest campus shooting in American history.” This has been the site of two recent FGC Gatherings and the campus’ unique architecture is instantly recognizable for those of us who have spent a cumulative two weeks on the campus. How horrible, how sad and tragic.
Hey who am I to decide anything
April 9, 2007
Over on Nontheist Friends website, there’s an article looking back at ten years of FGC Gathering workshops on their concern. There was also a post somewhere on the blogosphere (sorry I don’t remember where) by a Pagan Friend excited that this year’s Gathering would have a workshop focused on their concerns.
It’s kind of interesting to look at the process by which new theologies are being added into Liberal Quakerism at an ever-increasing rate.
- Membership of individuals in meetings. There are hundreds of meetings in liberal Quakerism that range all over the theological map. Add to that the widespread agreement that theological unity with the meeting is not required and just about anyone believing anything could be admitted somewhere (or “grandfathered in” as a birthright member).
- A workshop at the Friends General Conference Gathering and especially a regular workshop at successive Gatherings. Yet as the very informed comments on a post a few years ago showed, theology is not something the planning workshop committee is allowed to look at and at least one proponent of a new theology has gotten themselves on the deciding committee. The Gathering is essentially built on the nondenominational Chautaqua model and FGC is perfectly happy to sponsor workshops that are in apparent conflict with its own mission statement.
- An article published in Friends Journal. When the the Quaker Sweat Lodge was struggling to claim legitimacy it all but changed its name to the “Quaker Sweat Lodge as featured in the February 2002 Friends Journal.” It’s a good magazine’s job to publish articles that make people think and a smart magazine will know that articles that provoke a little controversy is good for circulation. I very much doubt the editorial team at the Journal considers its agreement to publish to be an inoculation against critique.
- A website and listserv. Fifteen dollars at GoDaddy.com and you’ve got the web address of your dreams. Yahoo Group is free.
There are probably other mechanisms of legitimacy. My point is not to give comprehensive guidelines to would-be campaigners. I simply want to note that none of the actors in these decisions is consciously thinking “hey, I think I’ll expand the definition of liberal Quaker theology today.” In fact I expect they’re mostly passing the buck, thinking “hey, who am I to decide anything like that.”
None of these decision-making processes are meant to serve as tools to dismiss opposition. The organizations involved are not handing out Imprimaturs and would be quite horrified if they realized their agreements were being seen that way. Amy Clark, a commenter on my last post, on this summer’s reunion and camp for the once-young members of Young Friends North America, had a very interesting comment:
I agree that YFNA has become FGC: those previously involved in YFNA have taken leadership with FGC … with both positive and negative results. Well … now we have a chance to look at the legacy we are creating: do we like it?
I have the feeling that the current generation of liberal Quaker leadership doesn’t quite believe it’s leading liberal Quakerism. By “leadership” I don’t mean the small skim of the professional Quaker bureaucracy (whose members can get _too_ self-inflated on the leadership issue) but the committees, clerks and volunteers that get most of the work done from the local to national levels. We are the inheritors of a proud and sometimes foolish tradition and our actions are shaping its future but I don’t think we really know that. I have no clever solution to the issues I’ve outlined here but I think becoming conscious that we’re creating our own legacy is an important first step.