Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)

On 2016-10-27 06:10, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> 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