Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
if he had told us within the first month "i'm sorry but this is much lower than i expected" we would have been able to go "ok, we have time, let's see what we can do".
but he kept the discussion going *WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION HOW MANY ORDERS DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE*.
every time we asked him "how many orders do you have" he answered with an answer that did not answer the question.
he dodged this question time and time again, finally answering when it was far too late.
now, if there are any other people who wish to do the exact same thing then i have absolutely no interest in dealing with them.
can you understand and appreciate that?
Yes I can understand and appreciate why you are so frustrated, a collaborator being evasive screwed you at just the time you thought you might finally get your project off the ground.
this has absolutely nothing to do with EOMA: it is a simple business relationship. we are interested to hear from people who can deliver on their promises, but who, if they cannot deliver, are forthright enough to be able to be honest and up-front about it.
is that not unreasonable, peter?
It is absoloutely reasonable to blacklist a collaborator who has let you down and failed to communicate from future collaborations.
However if something is to be considered an open standard you have to accept and allow people who meet the technical requirements to implement it and sell there own implmentations it *even if* you don't like them and *even if* you have had a past collaboration with them go bad due to miscommunication.