<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I was that second developer and even
though 'Embedded Devel' listed this as "paid" work and even
though he made repeated promises about following up on
payment, I never did receive payment. <br>
<br>
I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job
and found nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either
someone hijacked an email address - meaning that Optimcloud is
not a very *safe* company to do business with - or that
'Embedded Devel' at Optimcloud simply thinks he can get away
with this - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very
*trustworthy* company to do business with. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
no actually, neither is the case. I submitted the work for
payment, accounting inquired of the developer if it was all
working and he stated it wasnt. So where it is, and its more i
think we dont understand is when the client registers and is
authorized it should generate a new xml config for the client,
and right now there appears to be some mismatch, basically we
have no idea how you had this working. so we are a month in from
the work you did and i submitted payment for, and still have had
0 reproducability. Ive even reviewed the document you sent, as
has he, and we are missing something. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the first time I hear of this. To get a few things
straight (and I have the full email exchange at hand to back this
up): <br>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow so lets just make the whole thing public. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl">-
'embedded devel' originally asked for a developer to port old
OpenSSL code to openssl 1.1+ <br>
- I offered to do this and ported the application to work with
openssl 1.1.1 within a few hours. 'embedded devel' agreed with me
in email that I had achieved the original goal.</blockquote>
<p>This is in fact true, and i dont dispute it.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl"> <br>
- after that, I offered to help in debugging the rest of the
client/server application workflow, which was poorly documented
but which had little to do with openssl specifics. I never offered
or promised to get the entire client/server application framework
working again. <br>
- 'embedded devel' accepted my offer and said he had a fixed
maximum amount that he could spend. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>Also true.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl">- I
worked for the remainder of the time on analyzing and debugging
the application workflow, even though it turned out that I was not
given all source code. 'embedded devel' confirmed that a part was
missing.</blockquote>
The missing part was the UI, which itself was also in the process of
a rewrite, also of which isnt completed and the developer has been
compensated already.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl"> <br>
- I wrote a report with my findings and suggestions on how to
proceed. 'embedded devel' was satisfied with the report and told
me he would ask accounting to pay me. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>I am and was satisfied, and I did submit it to billing. However
that being said, we still cannot reproduce how you made this work
because it is unclear, it doesnt apper clearly in the document,
that also didnt prevent me from paying the bill.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl">- after
several reminders about payment he did not respond to my emails
until I made my post yesterday, claiming for the first time that
what I had done was not reproducible. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>This is untrue, and heres the proof.</p>
<p>"ive already processed this for payment, ill push the accountant
to get it remitted <br>
<br>
though the tone is a bit stern... nothing to worry about, itll
post to you. <br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
On 3/31/21 10:11 PM, Jan Just Keijser wrote: <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">Hello there, <br>
<br>
On 30/03/21 14:47, Jan Just Keijser wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"> <br>
just as a check/reminder: I have not yet seen my payment. <br>
Please let me know when the payment is made. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
this is my second and last reminder: I expect payment for my
services, € 1000 as agreed and promised, before the end of this
week. <br>
<br>
kind regards, <br>
<br>
Jan Just Keijser <br>
</blockquote>
<p>"<br>
</p>
<p>Now so we can not consume everyone elses time with trivial bits
of banter and this spins out of hand</p>
<p>emailing the list, and outing these facts doesnt get you paid
either. It seems yopur just upset because you believe we are
trying to rip you off and we arent. Plainly said it doesnt appear
to work, we cannot reproduce it, however i know that when you did
it, it did work, so whats the secret. To me its simple.</p>
<p>work is obviously done, more then happy to pay, matter of fact
ill remit $500 Euros in good faith right now. Out of my personal
account. Now proof of payment is sent, simply tell us how you made
this work. And leave everyone else out of it, We are all busy, I
did what i said i would do, and never intended not to pay you.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="afz">
<p class="adf adg adh bw by da ej gc mi pg sc sd sf sg u">Jan Just
Keijser</p>
</div>
<div class="afz">
<p class="aga agb agc"><span class="ic id ie if s"
aria-hidden="false"><span class="aga agd bw ej gc mi">-€500.00</span></span></p>
</div>
<div class="afz">
<p class="abp age agf bw by da ej gc mi pg qc sc sd sf sg u">Tuesday,
May 4, 2021, 2:54 PM</p>
<p class="abp age agf bw by da ej gc mi pg qc sc sd sf sg u">Id
attache the receipt, but its been blocked by the mailing list
due to size<br>
</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl"> <br>
Reviewing this, I see no reason to change my viewpoint on the
trustworthiness of either 'embedded devel' or the company
Optimcloud. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>Personally, I would have used a different tone in your last 3
emails. Its not very professional. And I did submit the payment
information, I even signed for it to be remitted. My Accountants
have a process, they followed the process. Sometimes thing take
time of get thrown a curve ball. And FYI, I am the Owner and CEO.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/4/21 2:34 PM, Jan Just Keijser
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c86736f8-1331-8f4f-0e35-78914375c78a@nikhef.nl">First of
all, apologies to this mailing list for making you part of this.
<br>
I will reply one more time , then take this discussion off-list.
<br>
<br>
On 04/05/21 07:24, Embedded Devel wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On 5/3/21 2:20 PM, Jan Just Keijser wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Just for the record:
<br>
<br>
On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">i now have a second developer looking
at this, so hoping he can sort it all out.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
[...]
<br>
<br>
I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel'
listed this as "paid" work and even though he made repeated
promises about following up on payment, I never did receive
payment.
<br>
<br>
I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job
and found nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either
someone hijacked an email address - meaning that Optimcloud is
not a very *safe* company to do business with - or that
'Embedded Devel' at Optimcloud simply thinks he can get away
with this - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very
*trustworthy* company to do business with.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
no actually, neither is the case. I submitted the work for
payment, accounting inquired of the developer if it was all
working and he stated it wasnt. So where it is, and its more i
think we dont understand is when the client registers and is
authorized it should generate a new xml config for the client,
and right now there appears to be some mismatch, basically we
have no idea how you had this working. so we are a month in from
the work you did and i submitted payment for, and still have had
0 reproducability. Ive even reviewed the document you sent, as
has he, and we are missing something.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the first time I hear of this. To get a few things
straight (and I have the full email exchange at hand to back this
up):
<br>
- 'embedded devel' originally asked for a developer to port old
OpenSSL code to openssl 1.1+
<br>
- I offered to do this and ported the application to work with
openssl 1.1.1 within a few hours. 'embedded devel' agreed with me
in email that I had achieved the original goal.
<br>
- after that, I offered to help in debugging the rest of the
client/server application workflow, which was poorly documented
but which had little to do with openssl specifics. I never offered
or promised to get the entire client/server application framework
working again.
<br>
- 'embedded devel' accepted my offer and said he had a fixed
maximum amount that he could spend.
<br>
- I worked for the remainder of the time on analyzing and
debugging the application workflow, even though it turned out that
I was not given all source code. 'embedded devel' confirmed that a
part was missing.
<br>
- I wrote a report with my findings and suggestions on how to
proceed. 'embedded devel' was satisfied with the report and told
me he would ask accounting to pay me.
<br>
- after several reminders about payment he did not respond to my
emails until I made my post yesterday, claiming for the first time
that what I had done was not reproducible.
<br>
<br>
Reviewing this, I see no reason to change my viewpoint on the
trustworthiness of either 'embedded devel' or the company
Optimcloud.
<br>
<br>
[...]
<br>
Snipping out the rest of the mail as it is off-topic to this
mailing list. I will reply to it privately.
<br>
<br>
JJK
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>