[Foundation-l] Confidentiality agreement with FSF

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thomas Dalton does not want to accept that in a relation where specific
people deal with other diplomatically to reach a deal, when the people
involved are the ones representing their very organisations, that these
people have to be able to trust each other. In his misguided ideas he
assumes that he is entitled to have all the details. He does not consider
the ramifications of such actions. For me it qualifies as dense. It does
because it has already been stated that the point why this is necessary will
be made clear when appropriate.

As to appropriate / inappropriate, is a matter of opinion. This argument has
been made over and over again. Nothing more is to be said, the message is
not reaching Mr Dalton... dense is a word that describes it.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is that it's an inappropriate response, especially when
> talking about good manners.
>
> -Dan
> On Apr 15, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > What is your point ?
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dan Rosenthal
> > <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Because saying "don't be dense" is exemplary of "good manners",
> >> right?
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >> On Apr 15, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> It is the Wikimedia Foundation that is the beneficiary of this whole
> >>> process. Don't be dense. It is good manners that make a delicate
> >>> negotiation
> >>> complete successful. This means that at some stage the situation is
> >>> as it is
> >>> and it is best to choose between "evils".
> >>>
> >>> As the creation of new projects is the final step in the process
> >>> that is
> >>> governed by the language committee, we have been urging for as
> >>> quick a
> >>> resolution as possible. In the final analysis it is for the
> >>> organisation to
> >>> ensure that our processes are possible and implemented. I trust the
> >>> organisation to have our best interest at heart. It saddens me that
> >>> the
> >>> projects have not been created yet, but such is life.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>    GerardM
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> If the WMF was in the business of pre-emptively publishing
> >>>>> information
> >>>> on
> >>>>> drafts of FSF licenses, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't get to see
> >>>>> any
> >>>> more
> >>>>> drafts.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the FSF insists on confidentiality, then obviously the WMF has
> >>>> to
> >>>> agree if they want to be involved. The fact that the FSF hasn't
> >>>> required an NDA would suggest they don't insist on it, it's just a
> >>>> preference, in which case out preference for transparency should
> >>>> take
> >>>> precedence.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >>>> foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>