Adam Lang wrote:
>
> I wasn't judging. I was mentioning to others what the concerns probably
> were. Also, it isn't a concern of "Company B" taking over. It is of the
> possibility of development put in the direction that best benefits of
> Company B as opposed to the project itself. And again, yes, the other core
> members can tell them to "blow it out their arse" but then you have a
> situation of them either going on their own and doing a "splinter" or just
> quitting in general and the direction is then even more put in the direction
> of Company B.
>
> It is merely a conflict of interest issue. Same issue in law as having
> attorney's from the same firm on the side of defendant and plaintiff. If
> the plaintiff is a multi-million dollar client and the defendant is
> pro-bono... there is concern about bias.
>
> Congratulations is in order for Mr. Momjian. I'm not saying he should or
> shouldn't work for them. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
>
> Adam Lang
> Systems Engineer
> Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
>
Well to calm any fears of Great Bridge taking over what exactly are the
terms of employment? Are the developers merely continuing on with what
they were working on and now getting paid for it, or is Great Bridge
saying here are the projects we want done so do it.
--
Dave Smith
Candata Systems Ltd.
(416) 493-9020
dave@candata.com
