[Foundation-l] Confidentiality agreement with FSF

[Chad]

Maybe they didn't see the need for a formal document. They
figured those involved will all act like adults when asked to not
discuss certain things. Erik said what he can, said he isn't
in a position to discuss anything beyond that. When he can
talk about it, he will. Whether you like it or not is your own
problem to deal with. Continually asking when it isn't going
anywhere gets old very fast.

Honestly, this thread is quickly turning into: "Mommy, can
I have a cookie before dinner?" "No" "Mommy, can I...."

...etc etc


-Chad

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > 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.
>
>  I accept that if the other party insists on confidentiality, then we
>  have no choice. That doesn't seem to be the case here. If it was that
>  important to them, they would have put it in writing.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>