toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The convenience with CHR is that you don't have to draft nor sign anything. A rough consensus often is sufficient.
CHR feels like an expedient in a situation where, I feel, there is a certain amount of urgency dictated by a fast moving marketplace.
On Dec 13, 2014 1:50 PM, "Joseph Potvin" <jpotvin@...
It seems I expressed that in a manner that is misunderstood. What I was saying is that the CH Rule *is* a type of NDA, and I illustrated that with the link to Fontana's comments. I also with the two respondents, that an NDA would be INappropriate here. Sorry that my earlier sentence was ambiguous.
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."
My suggested draft statement is not an NDA. It is a caveat.
David, Can you please re-state what problem needed to be solved?
OpenChain mailing list