{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/17","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/17/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/17/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/17/events","html_url":"https://github.com/gratipay/applications/issues/17","id":96608011,"number":17,"title":"TechRaptor","user":{"login":"mattbk","id":3729038,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3729038?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk","html_url":"https://github.com/mattbk","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattbk/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":12,"created_at":"2015-07-22T16:20:32Z","updated_at":"2015-08-11T14:28:58Z","closed_at":"2015-08-11T01:12:33Z","body":"https://gratipay.com/techraptor/"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/comments/129905354","html_url":"https://github.com/gratipay/applications/issues/17#issuecomment-129905354","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gratipay/applications/issues/17","id":129905354,"user":{"login":"HTuring","id":13749220,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/13749220?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring","html_url":"https://github.com/HTuring","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/HTuring/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-08-11T14:28:58Z","updated_at":"2015-08-11T14:28:58Z","body":"I think a major issue here is you're not communicating this to prospective clients. You answered several good questions in response to TechRaptr's article, but this is the first and only place answers like that have seen the light of day. You're coming off a major transition of brand, and at no point have you stopped and defined exactly who is still welcome and who is not. So far as I can tell, you define \"Open Work\" a grand total of twice. Once in your T&C and once on a page labeled \"Manage Risk,\" a single page among dozens that is not directly navigated to for prospective team owners.\r\n\r\nYou define Open Work in the following two ways: \"Open Work means that the Team provides a clear path for any individual to voluntarily begin contributing to the Team's work and to share in any revenue the Team generates.\" and \"We define “open work” as work that individuals can begin to perform without requiring explicit permission from the company offering it, with a clear path to further engagement and eventual compensation.\"\r\n\r\nWhat constitutes contributing? Where's the cut-off when team owners are too protective of the end-product that it no longer qualifies as Open Work? How does this apply to projects whose scope is not easily quantifiable? To creative content, to journalistic endeavours? And, more to the point, how does this apply to the people who formerly enjoyed your service under Gratipay 1.0? The people to whom you promised \"We are hoping to quickly approve as many users of the old Gratipay as possible.\" It is possible for a Team Owner to have a different definition of 'contribution,' 'Open Work,' and 'revenue sharing' than you do. In fact, it's extremely likely that their definition will be different because you don't seem to publish yours. The problem arises when you start denying service on the grounds of those differing definitions with no explanation or hope for reconciliation. This is precisely what you have done to TechRaptr, but you've then stated that having a conversation about those differences of opinion is \" a waste of everyone's time\" despite your brand value of \"direct interpersonal communication.\"\r\n\r\nYou have answers scattered in a hundred different places. You have some here, some (VERY few) on gratipay.com, some on medium.com/gratipay-blog and yet here you are ridiculing--yes, ridiculing, an action directly against your proposed values--applicants for \"a basic unfamiliarity with open culture,\" a concept which you yourself repeatedly fail to define in any real terms.\r\n\r\nYour brand values are flowery words that offer no real guidelines. You have no concrete grounds for extending or denying service to applicants other than what appears to be a gut feeling on whether your worldview is shared by them. You have no document that you can point to and say \"You were denied for reasons X, Y, and Z.\" You do not practice the value of open communication that you so espouse. Your website has no logical roadmap that can guide potential clients to an educated decision. \r\n\r\nThese words come from a place of love, but also from a place of frustration. I hope you take them as the constructive criticism as they are intended, but I fear you will simply label me a \"hater\" and refuse to acknowledge your own flaws. You are alienating client through sheer lack of information and communication and you are utterly failing to live up to the brand values you espouse. "}}