[Libre-soc-dev] OPF Membership Confidentiality Requirements

[Cole Poirier]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:20 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>
> i have mentioned this to hugh, paul and to mendy, even as far back as
> november last year, so they know to expect this.

Thank goodness!

> 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.

Indeed.

> 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.

So the WG would be publicly logged but with a 3 month delay?

> 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.

Critical, essential, non-starter... yeah pretty much would cut off our
legs before we even started to walk.

Definitely worth reviewing on our next Libre-SOC Sync call.

Cole