Thanks to those who joined the call today. I’ve posted the meeting minutes along with some proposed rough draft edits to the LF 2011 proposal in .doc and .odt format for further

Hi Everyone, Here’s the agenda for the meeting tomorrow at 8am PT, 11am ET, 3pm UTC, 5pm CEST. Upcoming meeting topics (Dave Marr, QTI) – 5 mins Proposed future topics (input

Looking forward to the call tomorrow. BTW I added a comment on the wiki re whether we needed to include a process to support community contributions (when doing so is not a compliance requirement),

Hi Everyone, The meeting minutes are posted onhttps://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/start?&#meeting-materials. As a follow up, please share problems and add thoughts that are non-binding to

Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated. http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule Dave

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

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

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

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

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

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. > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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