I run a personal web site, defaria.com that is located in my apartment and have been running that site since around 1998. I do it to keep my Unix/Linux system administration skills sharp, to learn web technologoies, develop applictions, provide myself with my own "cloud storage" and to serve as my home on the web.
On my site I run several blogs of a personal nature. One blog, my status blog, started out as a way for me to simply make bullet items to copy and paste into what most managers settle for as status reporting - just a bulleted list of what I had been doing lately. Then I started using the extended section to put in the technical details of the problems I had been facing and how I solve them. This turned out to be a valuable resource for me as I could now easily search the status blog to see if I encountered a problem like this before and how did I solve it.
But as time went by more of my clients stopped requiring weekly or monthly status reports and I have written articles in the status blog that were of simply opinionated commentary. For example, Outlook Top Posting was an opinion piece about how Outlook messes up quoting.
On February 4, 2013 I posted an opinioon piece on my blog entitled "File this one under Paid Support vs Open Source". The piece's theme is about how I'm seeing a trend towards Open Source Software (OSS) and people claiming that OSS is often supported better than closed source's paid support. I used a recent conversation with IBM support, which is paid support and which is expensive. I even said that often IBM support is excellent. Also note I never mentioned my client's name:
February 04, 2013
File this one under Paid Support vs Open Source
I use both proprietary software as well as open source software. One would think that when you pay for your software and pay a lot for support, then obviously you must be in a better situation should something not work correctly. But my experience has been the opposite. Not always but often. I can only attribute this to the fact that when dealing with OSS you often are talking directly with the developer who has pride in his work and wants it to work correctly. He is bothered when people report problems in his software and motivated to try and fix it.
On the other hand we've all had our "experiences" with so called front line support people who sometimes barely know how the software they support operates or even how to spell its name correctly, who ask their customers to reboot their Linux server that's been up for the last 3 years to see if that will "help".
IBM/Rational Support is far from that bad - often they are excellent. But it does seem that sometimes when the problem is a little thorny they will punt and say this is "outside of scope" - whatever that means.
I must admit my process is slightly complicated - a CQPerl script which serves as a multiprocess server which forks off a copy of itself to handle request to process Clearquest data. For anybody who has written such server processes they can be tricky at first to program and get right, but soon turn into just another programming task like any other.
The problem arises in an odd way in which a request comes in to add a record. BuildEntity is called and the record is successfully added. But when a second process later attempts to do a similar thing - add a record - the BuildEntity fails stating:
Status: 1 unknown exception from CQSession_BuildEntity in CQPerlExt at cqserver.pl line 31.
The support engineer eventually responded with:
On 1/25/2013 10:40 AM, Naomi Guerrero wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I'm following up on escalated PMR#16866,227,000. After escalating this PMR to L3 support, and Development having discussions about this issue, this request goes outside the scope of support. This is not something we can assist you with in support. Instead, I would recommend you reach out to your Sales agent at IBM (or I can) so that someone from the Rational Services team can further assist you.
To which I responded:
On 1/25/2013 11:00 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
How can you possibly say that this goes outside the scope of support?!? We have a situation here where your software returns the words "unknown exception", fails to do what it's advertised to do (Build and entity) and even stops my script from continuing! This is clearly an error in IBM's software. I have a reproducible test case (you'll need our schema, which I supplied). There's is nothing in my code that is outside of a supported situation - I'm using regular CQPerl stuff and every call is supported. It's on supported hardware, with supported versions of OS, Clearquest, CQPerl, etc. Why BuildEntity returning "unknown exception"? Surely this is in the code for BuildEntity. Somebody should examine it and report back! This is clearly an error and I fail to see how it goes outside of the scope of support at all. If the problem is difficult to solve that does not put it into the realm of "outside of support".
My client pays IBM big $$$ for support every year if I remember how IBM support contracts go. We want our money's worth. While I fail to see how a "Sales" agent will be able to assist (I personally think a knowledgable software developer like the guy who's responsible for the BuildEntity code - you do have somebody like that no? - should look into the code and see exactly what circumstances causes BuildEntity to emit such an error) if that's the next step then by all means take it and reach out to whoever is next in line to assist. But from where I sit this is indeed a bug and is not outside the scope of support. If you believe it is then please explain yourself. Why is this "outside the scope of support"?
Now granted it appears that this happens only with out schema (Works fine with the SAMPL database) but that seems to point to either a problem somewhere with action hook code being executed (which would also be deemed a bug as action hook code should never cause unknown exceptions to happen or it could be caused by some corruption in my client's database - something that should be pursued - not dropped to "Sales"!
Problem report 16866,227 000: unknown exception from CQSession_BuildEntity
Later I got an email from Naomi:
On 02/14/2013 06:06 AM Naomi Guerrero wrote:
Please remove my name from your blog site immediately. I respect your opinion about support, you are obviously entitled. However, I should not be publicly chastised for re-stating IBM guidelines and rules that are set forth by my management. Your case was escalated and I merely stated to you the response from my escalation/development team.
Again, please remove my name.
http://defaria.com/blogs/Status/archives/cat_broadcom.html
I responded with:
On 02/14/2013 08:01 AM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Rummaging around on my site eh?
I don't think I chastised you personally at all - I was talking about support organizations in general and IBM in this specific case. I don't believe that anybody would read my posting and think anything other than you were not speaking personally but rather you were speaking for IBM. I'm a firm believer in the first amendment and for giving credit and blame when it's due. My web site is a place where I state my personal opinions. You should believe what you say and stand behind your words - I do.
If you want to add your own statement to that posting then let me know and I'll add it.
As you can see I was firm in saying that this was my personal web site. I also offerred to the chance include her own statement, something I don't have to do.
So Naomi got her boss to essentially harass me:
On 02/15/2013 07:15 AM Ralph Bosco wrote:
Hi Andrew,
While I certainly respect your first amendment rights, I believe you can maintain the accuracy and intent of your post without including Naomi's name. Besides the fact that she's obviously uncomfortable having her name on a public forum, there are other issues to consider from the business side.
As you've already stated, she was not speaking personally but on behalf of IBM policy, and that is where the credit should remain.
Please remove her name from your blog immediately. You can easily replace it with the more generic "IBM/Rational Technical Support Engineer" without compromising your message and actually make it more accurate, as IBM is standing behind her words.
I trust I can consider this matter closed.
Thanks,
Ralph Bosco
Support Delivery Manager - ClearQuest, Rational Client Support
IBM Software, Rational
So I responded:
On 02/15/2013 07:23 AM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Besides the fact that she's obviously uncomfortable having her name on a public forum, there are other issues to consider from the business side.
Such as? I'm Curious...
This is my personal web site and is unrelated to my business, ClearSCM, Inc. (http://clearscm.com).
Again I mention this is my personal web site and demonstrate that my business site is at http://clearscm.com which is not in my apartment but at an ISP. So now Mr. Bosco has to justify his statement:
On 02/15/2013 07:31 AM Ralph Bosco wrote:
Well, for one I can think of right off the bat, it gives anyone who is searching for solutions to CQ issues access directly to Naomi, which could negatively impact her ability to support entitled customers such as yourself.
The point is moot. She obviously is uncomfortable having her name in a public blog, and with a very simple change, that can be remediated.
My response:
On 02/15/2013 07:39 AM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
How exactly does one get direct access to somebody from just having a name? Seriously, they'd have to call up and you guys are pretty strict about having "rights" to call IBM support. You don't take support calls from just anybody. And how does that negatively impact her ability to provide support? Sorry, I don't buy it...
I've heard that she's uncomfortable - you've said it twice now. I'm sorry she is. I don't believe she should be. Her comfort is not my duty.
Additionally on 02/15/2013 @ 09:36 AM I created an .htaccess file that secures this section of my personal web site to only users who have a username and password and the only user is mine.
Defaria:ll /web/blogs/Status/.htaccess
-r-xr--r-- 1 andrew users 99 Feb 15 09:36 .htaccess
So while I did not tell IBM that I complied, I did comply, within a few hours.
On 03/13/2013 I received a meeting invitation from Sue Johnson, an HR rep from Broadcom and Mohammed Ansari about a "Possible Social Media Issue":
| Sue (Susan) Johnson has invited you to Possible Social Media Issue | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Possible Social Media Issue |
| Location: | Sue's Office D3040 |
| When: | Wed 13 Mar 2013 02:30 PM – 03:00 PM |
| Organizer: | Sue (Susan) Johnson <sue.johnson@broadcom.com> |
| Description: | Hi Andrew: It has been brought to my attention that you may be violating BRCM’s social media policy. I am scheduling this meeting to gather additional information. |
| Attendees: | Mohammed Ansari <mohammed.ansari@broadcom.com> Andrew Defaria <adefaria@broadcom.com> |
During this meeting Sue told me that IBM had complained to upper management about the issue described above and that I should remove the name at once. I told her I already secured the site with a password and again re-itterated that this is my personal site and is not affliated with either Broadcom nor ClearSCM. I also said that I don't agree with either Broadcom nor IBM with respect to the privacy aspect of this issue and you'll note that the word "Broadcom" never appeared in my status blog in the first place. I did say, however, that I will do what Broadcom wishes and in fact I have already done it.
Sue sent the following follow-up:
On 03/13/2013 04:12 PM Sue (Susan) Johnson wrote:
Per our discussion today, this is a summary of our expectations regarding closure on the feedback received from the IBM Rational Support Delivery group:
- You have confirmed that the name of the IBM employee referenced in the blog posting is no longer visible to the public and will ensure that it does not become available to the public at any time in the future.
- In any communications posted to any public site, you must include a disclaimer that makes it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of Broadcom, unless you have express consent from your manager, the Corporate Compliance Officer or Broadcom’s Corporate Marketing & Communications Department to communicate on behalf of Broadcom.
- You will no longer have direct communications regarding any BRCM related issues with IBM as long as you are employed by Broadcom. Instead, you will communicate your questions/comments/concerns to a co-worker to be designated by Mohammed. That co-worker will be the intermediary between you and IBM throughout the duration of your employment with Broadcom.
Please let me know if you have questions or if you do not feel this accurately represents the expectations which were communicated and which you agreed to comply with.
I thought bullet #2 was overly broad so I wrote Sue back:
On 3/13/2013 4:41 PM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
I agree with all of the above however I think the second bullet item is too broad. One could easily take it to mean I cannot even post "Good morning" to Facebook without including a disclaimer for Broadcom. I don't think you mean that. I take the second bullet item to mean "in any communications on any site, if a reasonable man might question whether you are speaking for Broadcom then you should include a disclaimer or get permission". So then I would have no fears of posting things totally unrelated to Broadcom to Google+ or Facebook for example, but if I were to post to say IBM's forums I should not mention Broadcom at all (I usually just say "my client") or if I do, or if it could be reasonably be misconstrued that I'm speaking for Broadcom then I must either include a disclaimer or get permission. I think that covers it better. But as written this second bullet item seems to say I must include a disclaimer for anything and everything I post on the net.
Sue agreed and reworded it to say:
- In any communications posted to any public site that are in any way related to your work with or at Broadcom, you must include a disclaimer that makes it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of Broadcom, unless you have express consent from your manager, the Corporate Compliance Officer or Broadcom’s Corporate Marketing & Communications Department to communicate on behalf of Broadcom.
to which I promptly agreed.
I decided that I would move my whole status blog aside and put together a little trap so that I could find out who's probing my site. I configured my personal, home based web server to redirect any requests for http://defaria.com/blogs/Status to display a page with the following wording:
You should leave - your presence is unwelcomed here
This is my personal web site. While you can look at what's inside you assume full responsibilty for what you see. You should leave. Should you decide to go forward it's your fault.
You can hit the back button, close this tab or close your browser.
You have been warned.
This web page will redirect in a few seconds. Last chance to leave...
The page delayed for 20 seconds before moving onward - plenty of time for anybody to heed the warning. After the 20 seconds elapsed another page was displayed basically telling the visitor to fuck off with lots of colorful language and an explict image depicting what I thought of this user (avaliable upon request). Additionally the page logged the access and the IP address of the visitor so that I could see if IBM was probing my site again.
There have been 8 accesses to my status blog since then. The first visitor was Google's bot. Not wanting to have these recorded I used robots.txt to tell Google's search bots not to index this section of my site.
I got accesses from a couple of places in England, some mobile user and 3 conspicuous accesses from Broadcom's proxy in Irvine.
Even though this tactic is bold, I still believe it falls within my free speech rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Additionally, I still believe I was in compliance with Broadcom such that "the name of the IBM employee referenced in the blog posting is not longer visible" as it isn't.
Even though Broadcom claims my contract was terminated due to some of my email signature tag lines and told me that it was not terminated due to this issue, Broadcom never brought me into a meeting to discuss this problem and waited 5 weeks to terminate the contract. They did bring me into a meeting for the IBM issue right around the time they terminated my contract. I don't think this is a coincidence, rather I think that IBM pressued Broadcom to "do something" about this "unruly contractor" and brought it up to high levels. They told me that in the meeting - that IBM complained to Broadcom and wanted something done (which was already done anyway). Remember my corporation - ClearSCM Inc, of which I am an employee, was in contract with Broadcom. IBM made no efforts to contact ClearSCM but went straight to Braodcom.
I have the following questions: