|
Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
|
|
|
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 mailing list) where people's opinions about significant legal aspects are debated quite hotly. Instead, Open Chain is just about process and administration, which (hopefully!) is much less controversial and doesn't create any issues for anyone.
BR,
Mateo
Ps - Of course, all us corporate folks are speaking individually, and not on behalf of our respective companies. Think that is obvious, and doesn't need to be spelled out formally (or these emails are enough to do that). But if someone wants it formalized somewhere, I have no objections.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Karen Sandler Sent: den 16 december 2014 05:18 To: Marr, David Cc: openchain@... Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules? On 2014-12-15 18:55, Marr, David wrote: 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 additions would also be asked to adhere
to such principles. One implementation has been to announce new member
additions in an email that contains a reminder of the governance
principles. However these are details. Overall I don’t see an
administrative barrier that can not be addressed to adopting CHR if
folks support doing so. From a LF values perspective, would CHR pose
an issue?
Coming to Joseph’s questions, I wouldn’t try to directly draw legal
significance to a normative statement of how a community chooses to
self-govern.
As to the good example of sharing of communication within one’s
organization, I’m open to however folks wish to apply CHR. Perhaps an
easy bright line rule can be simply to not mention identity or
affiliation outside the meeting, period. Meeting minutes can exclude
such details as well. 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 at all. Since so much of what we do in FOSS is out in the open it can be really hard to remember what was said under CHR and what wasn't. I really like just using the rule that we respect people's request for anonymity when they ask for it ("don't quote me on this"). It's really simple, very easy to remember those situations after the fact and just a nice polite way to interact :) I'm also happy to discuss tomorrow. karen
Regarding an express community statement that for purposes of our
discussion the comments of a participant should not be attributed to
their employer, I’m okay with that too, perhaps as an addition to CHR
because it addresses slightly different aspects.
Inviting add’l insight, thanks.
FROM: Mike Dolan [mailto:mdolan@...]
SENT: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:44 AM
TO: Joseph Potvin
CC: Marr, David; openchain@...
SUBJECT: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
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 to the
wiki (which tracks changes by user) would both be difficult to
implement under CHR.
---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan
Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...
---
On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
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 that
of any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a
multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest
for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so
broadly worded that its relative popularity almost surely depends upon
rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if
you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright
within the past year.)
If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice
for this group.
When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen
if the rule is violated?
My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone
outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own
organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was
suggesting that the CHR would be problematic." Or, if somebody says
externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call
today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds
complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest.
Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully
respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants
agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during
each OpenChain interaction?
My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the
free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way
around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software
creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other
constraints, that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the
weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion
that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed
to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads.
Joseph
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...>
wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain [1]
--
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company |
La compagnie Opman jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________ OpenChain mailing list OpenChain@... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
On 2014-12-15 18:55, Marr, David wrote: 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 additions would also be asked to adhere
to such principles. One implementation has been to announce new member
additions in an email that contains a reminder of the governance
principles. However these are details. Overall I don’t see an
administrative barrier that can not be addressed to adopting CHR if
folks support doing so. From a LF values perspective, would CHR pose
an issue?
Coming to Joseph’s questions, I wouldn’t try to directly draw legal
significance to a normative statement of how a community chooses to
self-govern.
As to the good example of sharing of communication within one’s
organization, I’m open to however folks wish to apply CHR. Perhaps an
easy bright line rule can be simply to not mention identity or
affiliation outside the meeting, period. Meeting minutes can exclude
such details as well. 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 at all. Since so much of what we do in FOSS is out in the open it can be really hard to remember what was said under CHR and what wasn't. I really like just using the rule that we respect people's request for anonymity when they ask for it ("don't quote me on this"). It's really simple, very easy to remember those situations after the fact and just a nice polite way to interact :) I'm also happy to discuss tomorrow. karen Regarding an express community statement that for purposes of our
discussion the comments of a participant should not be attributed to
their employer, I’m okay with that too, perhaps as an addition to CHR
because it addresses slightly different aspects.
Inviting add’l insight, thanks.
FROM: Mike Dolan [mailto:mdolan@...]
SENT: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:44 AM
TO: Joseph Potvin
CC: Marr, David; openchain@...
SUBJECT: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
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 to the
wiki (which tracks changes by user) would both be difficult to
implement under CHR.
---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan
Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...
---
On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
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 that of any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so broadly worded that its relative popularity almost surely depends upon rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright within the past year.)
If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice for this group.
When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen if the rule is violated?
My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was suggesting that the CHR would be problematic." Or, if somebody says externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest.
Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during each OpenChain interaction?
My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other constraints, that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads.
Joseph
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain [1]
--
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Marr, David
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 3:56 PM
To: Mike Dolan; Joseph Potvin
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
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 additions would also be asked to adhere to such principles. One implementation has been to announce new member additions in an
email that contains a reminder of the governance principles. However these are details. Overall I don’t see an administrative barrier that can not be addressed to adopting CHR if folks support doing so. From a LF values perspective, would CHR pose an issue?
Coming to Joseph’s questions, I wouldn’t try to directly draw legal significance to a normative statement of how a community chooses to self-govern.
As to the good example of sharing of communication within one’s organization, I’m open to however folks wish to apply CHR. Perhaps an easy bright line rule can
be simply to not mention identity or affiliation outside the meeting, period. Meeting minutes can exclude such details as well.
Regarding an express community statement that for purposes of our discussion the comments of a participant should not be attributed to their employer, I’m okay
with that too, perhaps as an addition to CHR because it addresses slightly different aspects.
Inviting add’l insight, thanks.
From: Mike Dolan [mailto:mdolan@...]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:44 AM
To: Joseph Potvin
Cc: Marr, David; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
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 to the wiki (which tracks changes by
user) would both be difficult to implement under CHR.
---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan
Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...
---
On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
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 that of
any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so broadly worded that its relative popularity
almost surely depends upon rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright within the past year.)
If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice for this group.
When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen if the rule is violated?
My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was suggesting that the CHR would be problematic."
Or, if somebody says externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest.
Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during each OpenChain
interaction?
My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other constraints,
that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
--
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
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 additions would also be asked to adhere to such principles. One implementation has been to announce new member additions in an
email that contains a reminder of the governance principles. However these are details. Overall I don’t see an administrative barrier that can not be addressed to adopting CHR if folks support doing so. From a LF values perspective, would CHR pose an issue?
Coming to Joseph’s questions, I wouldn’t try to directly draw legal significance to a normative statement of how a community chooses to self-govern.
As to the good example of sharing of communication within one’s organization, I’m open to however folks wish to apply CHR. Perhaps an easy bright line rule can
be simply to not mention identity or affiliation outside the meeting, period. Meeting minutes can exclude such details as well.
Regarding an express community statement that for purposes of our discussion the comments of a participant should not be attributed to their employer, I’m okay
with that too, perhaps as an addition to CHR because it addresses slightly different aspects.
Inviting add’l insight, thanks.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Mike Dolan [mailto:mdolan@...]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:44 AM
To: Joseph Potvin
Cc: Marr, David; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
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 to the wiki (which tracks changes by
user) would both be difficult to implement under CHR.
---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan
Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...
---
On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
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 that of
any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so broadly worded that its relative popularity
almost surely depends upon rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright within the past year.)
If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice for this group.
When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen if the rule is violated?
My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was suggesting that the CHR would be problematic."
Or, if somebody says externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest.
Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during each OpenChain
interaction?
My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other constraints,
that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
--
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
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 to the wiki (which tracks changes by user) would both be difficult to implement under CHR.
---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...---
On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Potvin < jpotvin@...> wrote:
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 that of any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so broadly worded that its relative popularity almost surely depends upon rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright within the past year.) If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice for this group. When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen if the rule is violated? My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was suggesting that the CHR would be problematic." Or, if somebody says externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest. Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during each OpenChain interaction? My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other constraints, that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads. Joseph
_______________________________________________ OpenChain mailing list OpenChain@...https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
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 that of any other participant, may be revealed."
This is a useful and interesting mini-issue to resolve for a multi-entity community concerned with compliance management. I suggest for your consideration that CHR, its longevity notwithstanding, is so broadly worded that its relative popularity almost surely depends upon rather loose compliance generally. (As in: Please put up your hand if you have NOT knowlingly streamed a movie in violation of copyright within the past year.) If my assessment of the CHR is true, it's probably not the best choice for this group. When I read the CHR, my first question is: What is presumed to happen if the rule is violated? My second question is: Would this rule be violated simply when someone outside the conversation says verbally to a colleague in their own organization who was not in the meeting: "Well, that Potvin fellow was suggesting that the CHR would be problematic." Or, if somebody says externally: "Yes, the guy from Qualcomm was in the conference call today." Ambiguity about the boundaries is precisely what breeds complacency regarding compliance, I would suggest. Am I (in)correct in interpreting the CHR to be, de jure, if fully respected, a partial but very strict NDA in which all participants agree to fully exercise their moral right of non-attribution during each OpenChain interaction? My other concern is that the CHR seems to run contrary to the free/libre/open way, where expectations are usually the other way around: attribution of ideas is what we (free/libre/open software creators) proactively do by default. Legal counsel has other constraints, that's understood. But we have not yet (this being the weekend, granted) heard any specific comment back on my suggestion that "The usual caveat applies..." so that what people say is deemed to emanate from their own heads, and not from THE corporate heads. Joseph
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote: 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.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
-- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@...Mobile: 819-593-5983
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
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@...> wrote:
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?
Joseph
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
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?
Joseph
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:
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.
Jeremiah
> armijn
>
> --
> Armijn Hemel, MSc
> Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenChain mailing list
> OpenChain@...
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
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.
Jeremiah
> armijn
>
> --
> Armijn Hemel, MSc
> Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenChain mailing list
> OpenChain@...
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
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. armijn -- Armijn Hemel, MSc Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
|
|
|
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 critique of the Harmony Project: http://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1Whether one agrees or disagrees with the critique, an explicit NDA is easier, I reckon. It seems to me a difficult fit for a free/libre/open project. What are the penalties for violation of the rules? Is inferred disclosure a violation?
There's a very long-standing conventional approach supporting open reporting of research that goes something like: "The usual caveat applies. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and cannot be taken to reflect the views of their employers or clients." That wording is usually for a document. I've elsewhere created the following variant for a sensitive but open discussion forum (that's now 12 years running): "Participation in _______ involves individuals in their individual capacities, such that activities are driven by the research, interests and views of the members, which may or may not reflect the official stances of the organizations in which they may work. Therefore for OpenChain may I suggest something like: "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." Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@...Mobile: 819-593-5983
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
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 are lawyers. :) However progress on this type of project
is only possible with open dialogue. Chatham House indeed has been helpful elsewhere as Shane especially well knows.
Dave
On Dec 12, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Shane Coughlan < shane@...> wrote:
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 this rule has proven useful in allowing people to discuss sensitive concerns more openly than otherwise over a considerable period in multiple jurisdictions and fields, and therefore would support its adoption.
Regards
Shane
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 Technologies, Inc.
3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949-672-7759
F: 949-672-6604
Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated.
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
|
|
|
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 are lawyers. :) However progress on this type of project
is only possible with open dialogue. Chatham House indeed has been helpful elsewhere as Shane especially well knows.
Dave
On Dec 12, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Shane Coughlan < shane@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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 this rule has proven useful in allowing people to discuss sensitive concerns more openly than otherwise over a considerable period in multiple jurisdictions and fields, and therefore would support its adoption.
Regards
Shane
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 Technologies, Inc.
3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949-672-7759
F: 949-672-6604
Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated.
|
|
|
Shane Coughlan <shane@...>
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 this rule has proven useful in allowing people to discuss sensitive concerns more openly than otherwise over a considerable period in multiple jurisdictions and fields, and therefore would support its adoption.
Regards
Shane
On 13 Dec 2014, at 03:24, Alan Tse < Alan.Tse@...> wrote:
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 Technologies, Inc.
3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949-672-7759
F: 949-672-6604
Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated.
|
|
|
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 Technologies, Inc.
3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949-672-7759
F: 949-672-6604
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Marr, David
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:09 AM
To: openchain@...
Subject: [OpenChain] Chatham House Rules?
Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated.
|
|
|
Hi, should we move our OpenChain discussions under Chatham House rules? Thoughts appreciated.
|
|
|
