Re: Chatham House Rules?
In the same message I suggested a draft statement that I reckon would achieve the apparent objective of a simple conventional caveat that researchers use to liberate communication from narrow bounds of attribution:
"Participation in OpenChain discussions involves individuals in their capacities as individual professionals, such that comments are driven by their own research, interests, questions and views, independently of the official stances of the organizations with which they may work. It shall be considered inaccurate for any written reports of discussions to include individual or organization references unless the substance and attributions are vetted in follow-up written communication with the individuals or organizations identified."
On Dec 13, 2014 1:15 PM, "Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions" <armijn@...> wrote:
> On 12/13/2014 12:05 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>> an explicit NDA is easier, I reckon.
> NDA with whom?
> Personally I am OK with CHR (it definitely has proven its worth in many places and people actually know it), but I would feel uncomfortable to sign a NDA for the discussions we have here.
I feel the same way as Armijn, although I'll be more explicit; I won't sign an NDA. I also doubt the Linux Foundation will sign an NDA with every company on this list which is likely why CHR was proposed in the first place.
> Armijn Hemel, MSc
> Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
> OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain mailing list