Proposing we include a discussion of any edits to the wiki as one possible agenda topic. Also the OpenChain contribution model that we ran out of time to complete. Dave

Hello, The compliance certification proposal is now up on the wiki. In order to contribute or edit the wiki, you will need to login with an LF identity. If you have trouble, please feel free to

The meeting minutes from today and 12/16 are postedon the wiki at https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain. As an action item from today’s call, please provide proposed edits to the certification

Hi Everyone, Happy New Year! Here’s the agenda for the meeting tomorrow at 8am PT, 11am ET, 3pm UTC, 5pm CEST. Compliance certification proposal wiki page Contribution model for

I would like to second that. I think that Karen's proposal assumes integrity and good faith on the part of the participants which I believe each of them deserve based on my albeit limited

I agree with Karen's suggestion. I don't anticipate us talking about anything very sensitive, and if we should, then just flag it when it comes up. This is unlike other forums (such as the FSF

I also find CHR confusing when applied to mailing lists and other "meetings" that aren't really meetings. I also never know if it's ok to reveal that someone participated in the call, email or meeting

Given the conversation on CHR, would folks want to have the discussion on tomorrow’s call? We have additional time available. We will also discuss the sandbox on desired expectations

Great questions. Since we haven’t had formal governance discussions to date, I’d suggest any application of such norms be by consensus and only going forward. For the open mailing list, new

Dave, are you suggesting CHR be applied to a particular area (e.g. the minutes) or broader? Application of CHR to an open mailing list (with archives clearly identifying the source of each message) or

RE: "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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that Chatham House Rules can introduce complications that reduce the level of comfort. To illustrate, look at the reference to this approach in the first paragraph of R Fontana's

Thanks, and yes the motivation behind the proposal is to find a way for folks to feel more comfortable discussing those sensitive issues. There's no getting away from the fact many of us on this list

Hi Alan. Chatham House is a gentleperson's agreement rather than a legal contract. It has no impact on legal or professional requirements so there should be no conflict in this regard. Dave, I believe

Generally I’m ok with Chatham House as long as there is an exception for legally or ethically required disclosures. Alan Tse Copyright and Open Source Licensing Director Western Digital