-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Chapter agreements should be made public #11
Comments
@ripper234 You are correct, the original affiliate agreement has a confidentiality clause which protects both parties. It shouldn't be up to the Foundation to decide if each affiliate agreement is public/private because some chapters may not want to disclose this information. There is a lot of privacy issues that we are trying to protect. Maybe it's best for the Chapters to decide for themselves if they want to make this public? I'll ask them. Future: The newest agreement which has been modified based on suggestions from existing affiliates does not have to have a confidentiality clause specifically to "the terms of the agreement" if they choose. This does give each affiliate the choice if they want to make their terms private/public. As far as viewing the standard agreement, this is also available to any group that is interested in becoming an affiliate and requests the agreement. |
I disagree. I think the Foundation should insist on transparency principles in its internal and exterior dealings whenever possible. I realize that it isn't practical to open some things e.g. record every meeting with a government representative ... but agreements signed with chapters do not fall under this IMO. The Foundation and its Chapters must be transparent, or it will lose relevancy and legitimacy. I would like the latest agreement to be sent to my email at [email protected] BTW a nice way to manage semi-private documents is to put them in a private github with an access-control. |
A private repo would be a good solution. |
@ripper234 Well, I don't believe in mandating something like this, as it would be a top down directive which I'm trying to avoid. It's should be their choice. I will certainly discuss it with our existing affiliates and let them weigh in on it. |
What if 51% of the affiliates (or 70%, or whatever) would like to enforce On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:14 AM, M Woods [email protected] wrote:
Ron Gross |
Then the next step would be to propose a change based on a group discussion amongst the affiliates with a goal of implementing the outcome. |
Interesting, I'm looking forward to see how this develops. On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:22 AM, M Woods [email protected] wrote:
Ron Gross |
I have reason to believe that certain agreements that the Foundation signs with its foreign chapters contain a confidentiality clause that prohibits the chapters from discussing the terms of the agreement.
This is wrong. There is no room for backroom deals here.
As a step towards increased transparency, the affiliate/chapter agreements should not include this clause, and should be published somewhere public e.g. the Foundation's forum. This can be added to the bylaws.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: