1 |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> If there are any legal risks then maybe new developers should be |
4 |
> agreeing to not sue the foundation. |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
Two issues with that: |
8 |
|
9 |
1. Comrel doesn't exclusively deal with developers. That said, |
10 |
unless our media is whitelisted there might not be much we can do |
11 |
about non-devs unless they're cooperative. |
12 |
1a. A possible way to mitigate this is to make step 1 of any Comrel |
13 |
interaction with a non-dev to ask them if they're willing to agree to |
14 |
not sue. If they aren't then they are automatically booted with no |
15 |
further interaction. I'm not sure this really makes anybody happier |
16 |
but it would be a way to reconcile this issue. |
17 |
2. In the US at least you can't really agree to not sue somebody |
18 |
unconditionally. You can sign something that says that you do, but it |
19 |
isn't likely to be upheld by a court. You can give up your right to |
20 |
sue in specific ways, but courts will generally only accept this to |
21 |
the extent that the deal is seen as fair/etc. |
22 |
|
23 |
Most organizations that require their members/employees/etc to sign |
24 |
such agreements STILL keep such proceedings private for this reason. |
25 |
That, and out of an interest in not turning every single HR issue into |
26 |
a circus. Keep in mind that Comrel's goal in interacting with |
27 |
somebody should be primarily to help them to get along with everybody, |
28 |
not just to kick them out, and IMO keeping things private makes it |
29 |
easier to re-integrate. |
30 |
|
31 |
I'm not saying that asking Foundation members not to sue isn't a bad |
32 |
idea, but I don't know that it would accomplish much. I doubt that it |
33 |
would protect the Foundation against accusations of slander, or |
34 |
against shareholder lawsuits, and those are probably the two biggest |
35 |
areas of risk where suits from members are concerned. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Rich |