Re: Chatham House Rules?

Dave Marr

Responding to Joseph's question, the initial motivation was merely to promote open discussion on the substantive OpenChain topics. I think of CHR as a behavioral norm under which OpenChain list members might -- as a community -- decide to abide. I agree with prior comments it's not intended as agreement with legal formality.

Restated for convenience:
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."

Btw on re-read I would note the subject line I picked isn't quite correct; it's not "rules". There's just one rule.

I'm also fine with the normative statement that one's comments should not be attributed to their employer -- but see this as already partly covered by CHR. If more is needed, welcoming discussion.

I'll add one more thing. The reason I'm concerned about reducing barriers to participation is because I deeply appreciate folks taking the time to join the calls, adding their ideas and generally helping drive progress -- and make corrections as needed. Because of that I'd like to do as much as possible to help deliver to expectations, and with some degree of pace. So if anyone was held back by the same issues that caused Chatham House to come up with their rule nearly 100 years ago, perhaps adding their time-tested rule would help.

Note also the concern about transparency should be limited to the identity and affiliation of any participant. The substantive comments can be used -- filtered for identity and affiliation -- which one hopes would be useful.

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.