Skip to content
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

Open
ripper234 opened this issue May 27, 2014 · 7 comments
Open

Chapter agreements should be made public #11

ripper234 opened this issue May 27, 2014 · 7 comments

Comments

@ripper234
Copy link

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.

@mwbitcoin
Copy link

@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.

@ripper234
Copy link
Author

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.

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 ron@bitcoin.org.il

BTW a nice way to manage semi-private documents is to put them in a private github with an access-control.

@pmlaw
Copy link
Owner

pmlaw commented Jun 6, 2014

A private repo would be a good solution.

@mwbitcoin
Copy link

@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.

@ripper234
Copy link
Author

What if 51% of the affiliates (or 70%, or whatever) would like to enforce
this?

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:14 AM, M Woods notifications@github.com wrote:

@ripper234 https://github.com/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.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11 (comment)
.

Ron Gross
Executive Director, Mastercoin Foundation
mastercoin.org | ripper234.com | ripper234 on skype (Inbox != Zero
http://ripper234.com/p/how-i-learned-to-let-go-of-inbox-zero/) | PGP
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x7468729E28277264
Schedule my time at meetme.so/RonGross

@mwbitcoin
Copy link

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.

@ripper234
Copy link
Author

Interesting, I'm looking forward to see how this develops.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:22 AM, M Woods notifications@github.com wrote:

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.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11 (comment)
.

Ron Gross
Executive Director, Mastercoin Foundation
mastercoin.org | ripper234.com | ripper234 on skype (Inbox != Zero
http://ripper234.com/p/how-i-learned-to-let-go-of-inbox-zero/) | PGP
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x7468729E28277264
Schedule my time at meetme.so/RonGross

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants