On 2016-10-27 06:10, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <[email protected]>
wrote:
Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a
certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member
project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a
complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain
date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just
keep quiet until that date.
Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board?
I was involved in one.
If so, could you
estimate the frequency?
No. Mine was some time ago already, but also the only one I was
involved in. (e.g. frequency is 100%, but that's not really an
answer.)
If you do not know, could you provide a concrete
example?
No, that's kind of the point :-)
Thanks Henrik. I understand from your message that you consider that at least
one discussion on spi-board was rightly kept private due to a particular legal
risk, and that this discussion should remain private.
I encourage those with access to spi-board's content to explain why such
discussions should not be public, perhaps using examples from past discussions
which no longer need to be private.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
