 |
 |
Just two cents, maybe even a single cent: at the point where you're writing follow-up contracts to maintain or extend software written for contract, you should probably look into hiring someone. This is a symptom of a lack of investment in things you need. Best, Eric On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:49 AM, BWS Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Salvete! > > > > My first thought was a project-based contract, too. But there are few > > programmer projects that would require zero maintenance once finished. As > > someone who has had to pick up projects "completed" by others, there > > are > > always bugs, gaps in documentation, and difficult upgrade paths. > > > There could be follow up contracts for those problems, or they might > be less of a hassle for in house staff to handle than trying to do > absolutely errything from scratch. > > > > > > So I have no solutions to offer. Enticing people with telework is a good > > idea. It's disappointing to see libraries (and higher ed more generally) > > continuing to not invest in software development. We need developers. If > we > > cannot find the money for them, perhaps we should re-evaluate our > > (budgetary?) priorities. > > > > > Anytime I see things which I think more than one Library would like to > have I think "Caw, innit that what a Consortium is for?" One member alone > might not be able to afford a swank techie, but perhaps pooling resources > across Libraries would let you hire someone at an attractive salary for the > long haul while getting all of the members' projects knocked out. It would > also mean that you don't have to do any of those nasty follow up contracts > since the person that made it would still be about. > > Cheers, > Brooke >