Hi everyone,

Kelly asked me to circulate the slides for today’s call. Please find them attached.

All the best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

Hi Miriam,

We should also consider the frequency of the certification. Should it be annually renewed?

Thanks

Sami

Hi everyone,

Kelly asked me to circulate the slides for today’s call. Please find them attached.

All the best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

Hi Sami,

good point! My first impulse is to say yes. From my point of view it should’t be too much of a hassle for a company that has its processes in order, while it might increase the credibility and value of the certification/ assessment. But I’d like to get some feedback form other, especially those who deal with certification/ assessment in other cases. I’ll send out a summary of today’s call later this week and I’ll include your point

Best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

Hi Miriam,

We should also consider the frequency of the certification. Should it be annually renewed?

Thanks

Sami

Hi everyone,

Kelly asked me to circulate the slides for today’s call. Please find them attached.

All the best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

I think that it is a good idea.

If we are going to have certifications of large entities which may acquire other companies.  Does the certification apply to the new entity (for example when Dell bought EMC if Dell was certified would the certification apply to EMC?).  I think that we should consider either a distinction for companies that have been purchased or provide a period (three to six months) for the certifying company to certify that the new “subsidiary” can be considered compliant.  I am open to suggestions.

Hi Sami,

good point! My first impulse is to say yes. From my point of view it should’t be too much of a hassle for a company that has its processes in order, while it might increase the credibility and value of the certification/ assessment. But I’d like to get some feedback form other, especially those who deal with certification/ assessment in other cases. I’ll send out a summary of today’s call later this week and I’ll include your point

Best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

Hi Miriam,

We should also consider the frequency of the certification. Should it be annually renewed?

Thanks

Sami

Hi everyone,

Kelly asked me to circulate the slides for today’s call. Please find them attached.

All the best,

Miriam

______________________________________________________________

Dr. Miriam Ballhausen

Rechtsanwältin

JBB Rechtsanwälte

Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB

Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin

Tel. +49.30.443 765 0  |  Fax +49.30.443 765 22

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B

www.jbb.de

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

If the certification includes an identification of the person who is responsible (and I think that it should), I suggest that one requirement of certification is that they keep someone in that role during the period of certification.

These comments resonate with me as well.  As an attempt to capture the two related but distinct discussions on this point so far I’m seeing proposals to:

·         Build a pre-set, standard time duration for an entity’s OpenChain Certification.  An annual duration was proposed. Additional justification for setting a duration is because over time the person(s) in the FOSS Compliance Role might transition from that role, whether leaving the entity or changing job responsibilities within the entity.

·         Consider either a distinction for companies that have been purchased or provide a period (such as three to six months) for the certifying company to certify that the new “subsidiary” can be considered compliant.

On the second point, I’m attracted to the suggestion of making a distinction.  Perhaps any OpenChain Certification should extend to the entity and its subsidiaries at the time of certification (a snapshot in time), without automatic application to new subs, until the next annual(?) certification?

Dave

If the certification includes an identification of the person who is responsible (and I think that it should), I suggest that one requirement of certification is that they keep someone in that role during the period of certification.

Dear all,

In my experience 3-6 months is nowhere near enough time for a new (large, FOSS-immature) acquisition to become compliant to the FOSS policies and practices of the new parent….even 6-12 months may not be achievable. I think it’s better to have the subsidiary distinct until its compliant.

These comments resonate with me as well.  As an attempt to capture the two related but distinct discussions on this point so far I’m seeing proposals to:

·         Build a pre-set, standard time duration for an entity’s OpenChain Certification.  An annual duration was proposed. Additional justification for setting a duration is because over time the person(s) in the FOSS Compliance Role might transition from that role, whether leaving the entity or changing job responsibilities within the entity.

·         Consider either a distinction for companies that have been purchased or provide a period (such as three to six months) for the certifying company to certify that the new “subsidiary” can be considered compliant.

On the second point, I’m attracted to the suggestion of making a distinction.  Perhaps any OpenChain Certification should extend to the entity and its subsidiaries at the time of certification (a snapshot in time), without automatic application to new subs, until the next annual(?) certification?

Dave

If the certification includes an identification of the person who is responsible (and I think that it should), I suggest that one requirement of certification is that they keep someone in that role during the period of certification.