ProZ.com professional guidelines: revised version now view-able, will be endorse-able shortly
Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 20:35
SITE FOUNDER
Nov 8, 2016

Hi all,

Following recent discussions in both the public and CPN forums, a revised version of the ProZ.com professional guidelines has been posted: http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines/?pg_version=1.2

If there is any feedback on the formatting, please let me know. This version will be made the "current" version by the end of the day, thereby maki
... See more
Hi all,

Following recent discussions in both the public and CPN forums, a revised version of the ProZ.com professional guidelines has been posted: http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines/?pg_version=1.2

If there is any feedback on the formatting, please let me know. This version will be made the "current" version by the end of the day, thereby making endorsement of it possible.
Collapse


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 20:35
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
You took out the "no unilateral change" clause - that's a pity Nov 8, 2016

The previous version included this clause, and I think it was important:
do not attempt to change, after work has begun, agreed-upon terms (except by mutual consultation)


 
Dan Lucas
Dan Lucas  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
Agreed Nov 9, 2016

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
The previous version included this clause, and I think it was important:
do not attempt to change, after work has begun, agreed-upon terms (except by mutual consultation)

If Katalin is correct, why would you have removed it? The "except by mutual consultation" in the previous version made it clear that negotiation was possible, but omitting it implicitly suggests that ProZ condones unilateral amendments of terms on a project in progress. How can this be acceptable in a professional context? That way madness lies.

Regards
Dan


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 01:35
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
No objection Nov 9, 2016

Dan Lucas wrote:
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
The previous version included this clause, and I think it was important:
do not attempt to change, after work has begun, agreed-upon terms (except by mutual consultation)

The "except by mutual consultation" in the previous version made it clear that negotiation was possible, but omitting it implicitly suggests that ProZ condones unilateral amendments of terms on a project in progress.


I see your point and I have no objection to having such an item added to the guidelines. The way it is written in the existing guidelines is a bit silly, however. Agreed-upon terms can't be "changed" except by mutual consultation. If just one party changes the terms (or "attempts" to change it), then we're no longer dealing with agreed-upon terms.

How about:
do not attempt to enforce unilateral changes to agreed-upon terms


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 20:35
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Right, we are avoiding stating the obvious Nov 9, 2016

Samuel Murray wrote:

Dan Lucas wrote:

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
The previous version included this clause, and I think it was important:
do not attempt to change, after work has begun, agreed-upon terms (except by mutual consultation)

The "except by mutual consultation" in the previous version made it clear that negotiation was possible, but omitting it implicitly suggests that ProZ condones unilateral amendments of terms on a project in progress.

I see your point and I have no objection to having such an item added to the guidelines. The way it is written in the existing guidelines is a bit silly, however. Agreed-upon terms can't be "changed" except by mutual consultation. If just one party changes the terms (or "attempts" to change it), then we're no longer dealing with agreed-upon terms.

How about:
do not attempt to enforce unilateral changes to agreed-upon terms

Yeah, that was pretty much it -- the view was expressed, and I was convinced, that that clause was nothing more than a statement of the obvious. So it morphed into two other, more meaningful clauses. (One of which, ironically, you just successfully advocated to have removed in the CPN forum thread, Katalin... and if I understood you correctly, wasn't part of your argument that it should go without saying?)


 
Dan Lucas
Dan Lucas  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
No bad thing Nov 9, 2016

Henry Dotterer wrote:
Yeah, that was pretty much it -- the view was expressed, and I was convinced, that that clause was nothing more than a statement of the obvious.

Many obvious points are stated in agreements, just so that afterwards neither party can claim that those points were not, in fact, obvious. That's the benefit of having such a statement in there, and I can see no downside.

Regards
Dan


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 20:35
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Going forward Nov 9, 2016

Dan Lucas wrote:
Many obvious points are stated in agreements, just so that afterwards neither party can claim that those points were not, in fact, obvious. That's the benefit of having such a statement in there, and I can see no downside.

Thanks, Dan, I take your point. I'm trying to be a bit of an arbiter here... doesn't matter to me much whether that line is in or not but I've gotten both viewpoints. (As a side note, you said "agreement" -- the guidelines are neither a contract between buyers and sellers, nor terms of use of the site. They are a set of practices offered up for optional endorsement. Not that that takes away from your point.)

Anyway, at the risk of appearing insensitive to the latest opinions, I have to say that the review process for this revision has been fairly exhaustive (we've had prior public review, staff review, CPN-forum review and private discussions), and the conversation is beginning to circle a little bit. So at this point, with the impending Tuesday release date for the Plus package, I am going to go forward with this as the next revision for the guidelines. (I had come here looking for final feedback on formatting only.)

In about an hour the change will be made. I hope each ProZ.com user will review and consider endorsing this latest version of the guidelines. If you do not, you can just keep your endorsement of the older version.

Again, the link is: http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines/?pg_version=1.2

You can endorse at the bottom. (It is revokeable.)


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 20:35
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
No Henry, you misunderstood it, please re-read it there on the CPN Nov 11, 2016

Samuel Murray wrote:
How about:
do not attempt to enforce unilateral changes to agreed-upon terms

Yes, this is the right way of saying it.

Henry Dotterer wrote:
Yeah, that was pretty much it -- the view was expressed, and I was convinced, that that clause was nothing more than a statement of the obvious. So it morphed into two other, more meaningful clauses. (One of which, ironically, you just successfully advocated to have removed in the CPN forum thread, Katalin... and if I understood you correctly, wasn't part of your argument that it should go without saying?)


NO, HENRY, NO.
On the CPN forum, I advocated for removing the other clause about payment contingency, BECAUSE the clause about "no unilateral change" WAS ALREADY IN the guidelines. At least in the then current guidelines, and now I noticed that you excluded it from version 2.0
To be clear, the "no unilateral change" is the one clause that should be included, because that covers every silly excuse that one party may come up with in order to modify agreed-upon terms.

Katalin


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 20:35
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Not a new opinion, you misunderstood it originally, and I realized that late Nov 11, 2016

Hi Henry, again, I just read your latest post from Nov 9.
I am sorry that I did not see it earlier - I did not have alerts turned on for this new thread.

Anyway, at the risk of appearing insensitive to the latest opinions,

I just wanted to react to this: the issue we brought up here is not new, the change in wording suggested by Samuel was already discussed a while ago, I clearly remember reading it.

You also misunderstood my points in the discussion on the CPN-forum, so I wanted to clarify that.
It seems you removed the clause that I suggested to be removed (thank you) but at the same time you removed the "no unilateral change" clause, which was the one that made the "contingent payment" clause unnecessary.

You have known me for quite a while and we had many discussions over the years. It is true that sometimes we didn't see eye to an eye, but I am surprised that you thought I would advocate for one thing and then a few days later I would advocate for the exact opposite of it. (???) So no, I wasn't doing that.

I know you want this to be over and just post the darn thing, but I ask you to re-read your own post about how you want these guidelines to be one of the tools to screen business partners. Knowing that my prospective partner endorses the "no unilateral change" clause is very important, if not the most important in the entire list of Guidelines.

Remember, we said there should be a contract/agreement between the partners, and a Code of Conduct should not go into specific details that are part of the contract. However, how you treat that contract, is an essential part of how you do business, it stands above the specifics. You can have a very well crafted contract, but if the other party makes unilateral changes, things can get ugly.

Please make this one change (restore that clause, perhaps with Samuel's wording, as it is more clear and professional/sounding).

Thanks
Katalin


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 20:35
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks, Katalin Nov 11, 2016

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
It seems you removed the clause that I suggested to be removed (thank you) but at the same time you removed the "no unilateral change" clause, which was the one that made the "contingent payment" clause unnecessary.

No, the "no unilateral change" clause from version 1.1 never appeared in any draft of version 1.2, because the feedback that it is pointless had come in over the years, and as I said, I also came to take that view. So instead, the spirit and meaningful components of it were embodied in two separate clauses, one for service providers and one for service buyers. The one for buyers is the one that got removed: "make agreed-upon payments to subcontractors, when work has been completed as agreed, [and do not condition] payment upon receipt of payment from end clients"). The one for service providers is still there: "comply with agreed-upon terms, and endeavor to produce work that is free of defects, even when unforeseen problems are encountered".

You have known me for quite a while and we had many discussions over the years. It is true that sometimes we didn't see eye to an eye, but I am surprised that you thought I would advocate for one thing and then a few days later I would advocate for the exact opposite of it.

I know! What surprised me, and I found ironic, is that you were arguing against that clause, which was after all pro-translator, and that others were agreeing with you -- in the CPN forum, no less. I thought I must have been missing something and I went with your judgment. Apparently you are very persuasive.

Knowing that my prospective partner endorses the "no unilateral change" clause is very important...

Exactly. Now you are making the same argument that I was.

Please make this one change (restore that clause, perhaps with Samuel's wording, as it is more clear and professional/sounding).

I have already released the new version but I'll circle back to this when I can. Thanks again!


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 20:35
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Where the disconnect was Nov 12, 2016

Henry Dotterer wrote:

No, the "no unilateral change" clause from version 1.1 never appeared in any draft of version 1.2,

And that is where the disconnect happened.
I did not notice that it was missing from the draft (which means it was removed when you went from v1.1 to the proposed v1.2), I assumed it was there (because why would anyone want to remove that?).

You have known me for quite a while and we had many discussions over the years. It is true that sometimes we didn't see eye to an eye, but I am surprised that you thought I would advocate for one thing and then a few days later I would advocate for the exact opposite of it.

I know! What surprised me, and I found ironic, is that you were arguing against that clause, which was after all pro-translator, and that others were agreeing with you -- in the CPN forum, no less. I thought I must have been missing something and I went with your judgment.


What was missed is that I (and probably others who agreed with me) assumed the "no unilateral change" clause, which is an all-encompassing protection for translators, (and much better than a clause pointing out just one specific case of a unilateral change) was going to stay, and at the same time, you knew it was removed, and assumed we realized that.
A case of mutual myopia?

Knowing that my prospective partner endorses the "no unilateral change" clause is very important...

Exactly. Now you are making the same argument that I was.

Except that I am for the general "no unilateral change" clause, that covers the entire agreement, and against a clause that is too specific and much more restricted. There are other parameters of a contract that one party may attempt to change unilaterally, not just the payment terms. That is the difference.


Please make this one change (restore that clause, perhaps with Samuel's wording, as it is more clear and professional/sounding).

I have already released the new version but I'll circle back to this when I can. Thanks again!


OK, thanks.

Apparently you are very persuasive.

You can't say that until you put back the "no unilateral change" clause!

Katalin


 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

ProZ.com professional guidelines: revised version now view-able, will be endorse-able shortly






Trados Studio 2022 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.

Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

More info »
CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

Buy now! »