Fit
What we do, and what we don't.
A scoped fix and a system somebody has to maintain are different commitments, so they have different criteria. If you are not sure which you have, that is a normal thing not to know. Send it and we will tell you.
This week
The fast lane
One specific thing, done in days. This is most of what we do and the answer is yes far more often here.
Good fit
- You can name the thing in one sentence. “I need every 2024 contribution over $500 to a state senate candidate, from filings that are PDFs.” That is a Tuesday.
- The inputs already exist. A file, an export, a login, a public dataset. If we have to wait three weeks for the data, it is not a fast-lane job.
- Nobody has to maintain it afterwards. A number, a list, a report, a one-time migration. Or a script simple enough that a staffer can re-run it.
- A short deadline is fine here. Genuinely. This lane exists because the old six-week floor was an artifact of how long software used to take.
This cycle
The build lane
Something with users and a future. We ship most work in one day to one week depending on scope; anything that has to be maintained afterwards is a bigger commitment on both sides, so the bar is higher.
Good fit
- Enough runway to maintain it. Building it is fast; keeping it alive after November is the part that needs someone still there.
- One person who answers every week. Reachable, able to decide alone. More builds die here than from engineering.
- Somebody will still be there afterwards. Which is why organizations and unions fit this lane better than a campaign that dissolves in November.
- You end up owning it. The code and anything it runs on are yours. We work out the arrangement on the call.
Not a fit, either lane
- A website. Brochure sites, WordPress, landing pages, a redesign. Good cheap people exist. We are not them.
- Brand or design. Logos, identity, collateral.
- Marketing. Ad buying, media planning, email fundraising, direct mail, persuasion content.
- Something a product already does. We will name it and send you there. Fifty dollars a month for a tool that works today beats waiting on volunteers to build it worse.
- Political strategy. We will tell you what is buildable, what it costs, and whether to buy instead of build. We will not tell you what to run on or who to target.
- You are not progressive-aligned. We are not neutral and do not pretend to be.
- You need a vendor, contractually. Below.
We'll tell you what not to build
Most organizations this size have nobody to ask. So the first thirty minutes are often worth more than the code: whether the thing you described is the actual problem, whether a product already solves it, what it would take, and what it would cost you to maintain.
We will talk you out of things. Often the honest answer is “buy this instead,” or “that is two problems and only one is worth solving.” That is the job, and it is free too.
Where it stops: technical judgment, not political judgment. We will not write your plan.
We cannot sign anything
No entity exists. So: no vendor agreement, no master services agreement, no statement of work, no service level agreement, no certificate of insurance, no W-9, nothing your procurement process can file.
If your organization cannot accept help without a contract behind it, we are the wrong people and it is better to know today. Plenty can: named people on both sides and a shared document. Many larger ones genuinely cannot, and that is a reasonable policy, not something to argue with.
It cuts both ways. Nothing locks you in. You hold the repositories and the infrastructure the whole time and can end it whenever you like.
If it's a no
Within a week, with a reason, and where we know one:
- the product that already solves it, by name
- someone better suited to it
- the smaller version of it we would say yes to
Not a maybe held open indefinitely. And a no to the big version is often a yes to a smaller one, so it is worth asking.
