Provisional Order on Personal Project Boundary
The person is working on a personal project. The project has a boundary. The boundary has been crossed by at least three requests from people who mean well.
Provisional Order Regarding Personal Project Boundary Enforcement
Transcript of informal hearing, condensed
Presiding: The person.
Matter before the hearing: Whether the personal project has been adequately protected from unsolicited input, and what measures remain available.
Finding 1: The Disclosure Problem
The project was mentioned in conversation approximately six weeks ago. The mention was brief and intended to explain the person's reduced availability on weekends. The mention contained no invitation for engagement. The mention has nonetheless produced ongoing engagement.
Mentioning a personal project in conversation is a disclosure that cannot be retracted. Once mentioned, the project becomes a social object that other people have opinions about. The opinions are offered in good faith. The opinions are not always useful. The distinction between these two facts has not been communicated to the opinion-holders.
Finding 2: Nature of the Incursions
The person did not ask for input. The input has arrived regardless, in the form of suggestions, comparisons to existing products, and one question about the business model that the person is not prepared to answer.
The suggestions are well-intentioned. Several of them are things the person has already considered and decided against. Explaining that the suggestion was considered and declined requires the person to describe the decision-making process behind the project, which is more disclosure than the person intended to offer at this stage.
The question about the business model was asked twice. The person does not yet have a business model. The project is six weeks old. The question implies a timeline the project does not have.
Finding 3: The Absurd Rule
There is a social norm governing the treatment of personal projects in early stages. The norm holds that early-stage projects should be given space, that premature interrogation about scalability and monetization is counterproductive, and that the creator should be encouraged without pressure. This norm is widely understood. It is not widely observed.
The people asking about the business model also know about this norm. They do not believe their question constitutes the kind of pressure the norm is designed to prevent. They are wrong about this in ways that are difficult to explain to them directly.
Finding 4: The Contradiction
The person wants to talk about the project. They also want to not be asked about the business model. These are not contradictory positions. They require the audience to distinguish between interest-that-invites-engagement and disclosure-that-does-not. This distinction is harder to communicate than it appears, and harder to honor than it is to understand.
The hearing has produced no enforceable order. The project continues. The boundary will hold approximately as well as it has held, which is approximately sixty percent. This is within acceptable parameters for a six-week-old personal project that has been mentioned in conversation.
Hearing adjourned.