[Foundation-l] Confidentiality agreement with FSF

Tue Apr 15 20:26:16 UTC 2008

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 15/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen 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.
The fact that an agreement is not in a signed paper does not make it 
invalid.  If you are working with your kids to prepare a birthday gift 
for your wife would you insist on a written confidentiality agreement to 
prevent them from telling her before her birthday?  When everything 
needs to be reduced to writing you can end up spending more time on the 
text of the confidentiality agreement than on whatever is the primary 
object of your negotiation. 

I'm sure that Erik is well aware of the chronic querulousness of certain 
Wikipedians, and their penchant for giving a higher priority to 
discussion than to thought.  That alone can make a person hesitant about 
sharing even information that might not be covered by confidentiality 
understandings.

Ec