I'm sure you've already thought about this but bear in mind that as a buyer, I don't want to hear "unlimited" for things that have material scaling costs for my service providers, it just sounds unsustainable and likely to change later or be the cause of an issue.
On the other hand being free from arbitrary limits is great.
i have been involved in quite a few code escrow agreements but none that were actually used. i'd be curious to hear any stories about cases where that did happen.
in my experience it has just been a way to help business decision makers credibly claim they are managing risk when buying from a startup
WGU was a customer when I was at Learning Objects, they always impressed me visionary and outcome oriented. glad to hear a positive anecdote more than 10 years later.
yes, i was part of doing something like this at a small elearning startup for one of the largest publishers in the world circa 2010.
Exactly as you say, brought in to provide the tech platform for a strategic initiative involving a transformative shift to digital-first courseware and content.
in the future our personal editors will create our own editions of these books. mine will have an even longer captain crunch section and yours will be abbreviated
ah i didn't actually explain it, the other responder did though.
6/7th (~85.7%) of parents with b g are knocked out by the day of week filter, while only ~%73.5 of the b b parents are knocked out by it. (if i did that math right) so proportionally the sample has more bb parents than the one without day of week.
true but note that the day of week selector is knocking out 6/7ths, it's quite a dominant excluder of parents. thus countering the effect of "has one boy already" on the composition of the group
what works for me is to think of it like the mob of people is already there in front of you, and you're first grabbing out just a subset of the mob based on some conditions, then checking only those qualified at random which is the same as checking the distributions inside the qualified group.
so for problem 1, the mob is all parents with 2 children, each child is either b or g. the underlying distribution is 25%bb, 25%gg, 50%bg.
you first cull the set by saying "only parents with at least 1 b, line up to be examined". i think it's clear that the selected population will be 1/3 bb parents, 2/3 bg parents, right?
on the other hand the second problem is you saying: "all parents with a b born on tuesday, report to be examined!". note that most of the parents that were in the question 1 selected population are now excluded. try to imagine which parents get selected by this one.
you can't make the inference back to the original question because it's a different question about a broader group of people. question 1 population distrubution actually is 1/3 vs 2/3. the key is to think of it as selecting different subsets of the parent mob.
its tragic that this sort of thing can't be resolved more optimally. Sets up a lose/lose. Too bad you can't just send your agent in to negotiate on your behalf, a 3rd party can take positions that are very hard to express yourself without ruining the relationship.
i am very interested in the next generation of things like horizon workrooms on oculus. I find the current gen unpleasant to use for long periods of time but I'm sure it can be improved
At my company we have recently rolled out a new framework where the IC track has rungs that run parallel to middle management roles.
we're calling it "advanced professional", and has 3 levels, the highest being equivalent to the leader of a function, if you're familiar with the domain / function / specialty paradigm. This is essentially a director level individual contributor which I think is a pretty cool.
We're just a medium sized services company (localization, AI training data production, digital marketing). so if we're doing this I expect a lot of people will be soon enough.
in meatspace though, my real mailbox is mostly filled with spam that the sender paid to have delivered.
granted, it would at least act as a limiting factor.
i have a bit of a reputation for doing this, and a few personal relationships with business leaders who have tapped me for these kind of projects. in the end its kind of dysfunctional every time because various people in the org own the relevant responsibilties already and you are basically micromanaging them against their will as a prelude to termination or reorganization.
its not like the solutions are usually that hard to figure out, it's always a problem with people and their incentives ultimately.
the fixer role is basically to give confidence to the CEO that disempowering certain people is safe and there's a path out.
i have more sympathy today for the gatekeepers than i did earlier in my career. The main points that lead to this are:
1. many of these grassroots apps are a mess, filled with bugs and security flaws.
2. often they don't align with standard platforms and technologies that are in use. this includes source control, CI, unit testing standards, SSO, etc, not just the code itself)
3. no one put together a business case, so no budget or justification exists for support and maintenance costs, and no planning has been done to execute on that.
4. the application was not built in compliance with internal processes. this can mean it will never pass an audit (because the org is operating under ISO 9001 or something). at a minimum, some valuable and time-constrained people may have to analyze it carefully to figure out what the risks are
for an IT org, there are usually a lot more good ideas than there is capacity for supporting, maintaining, testing, and managing applications. further, maintenance costs dwarf initial build costs. "here, I built you this" doesn't really solve the whole picture. it feels more like an annoying effort to skip the line and hand off a white elephant that has to be babysat for ever.
Note that this is not a justification for the stonewalling or cold shoulder. in this type of org, i'd expect IT to help write the business case and make it easy to do things according to policy