[Libre-soc-dev] OPF Membership Confidentiality Requirements

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On 10/9/20, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:

> I started reading through the requirements in OpenPower Foundation IPR
> Policy.15July.2015 (1) (2).pdf
>
> we may have an issue with joining because of NLNet's requirements for doing
> everything publicly, we may want to ask the OpenPower Foundation if we can
> join as non-confidential members (I don't think they have that), allowing
> us to participate in all the non-confidential WGs but not in the
> confidential ones.
>
> Ideas?

i have mentioned this to hugh, paul and to mendy, even as far back as
november last year, so they know to expect this.

however it is one thing to say "yes this is our intent" and quite
another to commit to it and keep to it when rubber meets road.

hugh did tell me that they might request a "quiet period" even for
non-confidential WGs.

this because companies arranging press releases, consulting lawyers
and writing investor-related "forward looking statements" can get into
really quite serious trouble if there is not "silence" for durations
covering the churning of bureaucratic wheels.

i don't have a problem with _that_ however yes i have already said to
OPF key people we really really cannot participate in closed WGs.

not just because of NLnet but because it also undermines the business
commitment to transparency.

this is our nightmare hypothetical question from a hypothetical
customer in a hypothetical online article: "they said they're gonna
commit to transparency on this privacy and trust thing, now they're
doing secret WG development? these people are total liars, can't even
honour a single basic commitment in business, what else have they lied
about?" at which point we just wasted 3+ years of our lives.

so yeah sticking to what we said is kinda important.

l.