I like this comment too but in many cases the requesting party has almost no relationship to the receiving party. The requester is almost always in a buyers market (filing an issue is cheap) and the receiver is almost always social (working closely with others to resolve issues).
This model does explain the different sides, but the problem remains.
So it seems that the problem with the requester’s market approach is that there is no mechanism for setting value. So how do we solve that?
> but in many cases the requesting party has almost no relationship to the receiving party
That is a common occurrence - which makes it dangerous for either side to make assumptions about the other.
So the more I think about it, the more I feel that it's the "market approach" that's better-suited for work requests and issue reports, when the two sides don't have a preexisting personal relationship. "Market approach" is assumption-minimizing, and thus also mistake-minimizing.
On a side note, I wonder if that's what "rejection therapy" and assertiveness are both about: they're trying to teach you to ask people more (instead of assuming they'll say no), not take rejection personally, and to be ready to just say no to other people. Taken like this, they sound like attempts to correct people into using "market approach" where they tend to use "social approach".
> So it seems that the problem with the requester’s market approach is that there is no mechanism for setting value.
I think this is not a problem at all. That's why I called it "market approach" - the market is the tool that's used to determine value.
This model does explain the different sides, but the problem remains.
So it seems that the problem with the requester’s market approach is that there is no mechanism for setting value. So how do we solve that?