I've never quite understood why Robert Martin carries so much currency in the software development world. That whole portion of industry group-think -- what to call it? consulting-revenue-oriented-dev-culture? you know, the agile/xp/enterprise software/oop-cum-fp-design-pattern "flavor of the month while pretending to be profound" thing -- had noble intentions but feels like a huge left turn in retrospect. Fortunately that crowd is taken less and less seriously as software progresses toward something more reminiscent of traditional engineering; the next generation of the sort seems to be piling into the "data science" world.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
Verbal agreements still count as contracts in some jurisdictions and having your schedule booked on a certain date means you're missing out on paying opportunities. I assume you're employed otherwise you wouldn't spout nonsense like that.
There is no contract, verbal or otherwise, because there was no consideration -- Martin would not have received anything in exchange for giving his presentation. (Intangible benefits like "exposure" don't count as consideration for the purposes of contract law.) The conference never had any obligations to him, and consequently he has not lost anything by no longer being engaged to speak.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit! This is all about getting exposure and perhaps channeling wallets towards his Patreon (or SubscribeStar, or whatever platform is en vogue with the bob martins right now).
> There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit!
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
> The conference organizers are in breech of contract
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.
It was actually easy to identify the conference in question by searching for the author's name plus "Chicago" and "conference". DuckDuckGo's search summary shows him as a speaker, but the actual page does not. And the date of his own talk coincides with the first day of that conference.
I think he shouldn't have been dis-invited from the conference. But, on the other hand, I find Rob Martin overrated and very much like an snakeoil salesman, he needs to peddle something. He is very opinionated and his opinion changes too quickly to be useful, so he's not a person I really want to waste my time learning from. There are plenty of people out there who don't pretend to be gurus and yet what they teach is infinitely more useful.
From memory I think (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) there were some articles about hiring on merit rather than promoting gender (and possibly race/culture) diversity as an ideal?
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
calling out the left in the US for promoting a cancel culture. And telling people not to remain silent or embarassed about having views other than the left.
I wouldn’t have cancelled the contract, we’re not getting anywhere with purity tests. We can appreciate what George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did AND disapprove of their slaveholding. Life is ambiguous and messy.
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
True... I can’t glean your point, though. Are we disagreeing somewhere, or are you amplifying/concurring? Am I missing something so egregious (a call to race war or similar) that he’s an incitement danger on the order of a Richard Spencer? I don’t even agree with him on every tech subject.
Readit News
Conference asks Martin to give a presentation. No money is to change hands, no contract is signed.
Conference changes their mind and decides to not have him speak after all.
Martin's reaction is to throw around legal threats like "breech of contract" [sic] and "tortious interference"???
Sounds to me like the conference dodged a bullet.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
Deleted Comment
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment