Subject:
|
Re: Let's be realistc (WasRe:MoreVenomAnyone? (WasRe:Givethemabreak (was:Hey,like,isanyonethere?)))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:15:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
749 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> Why exactly do the people going to the "Train summit" or "CAD summit"
> need to sign NDAs and to get inside information? You don't need
> to sign an NDA to share your ideas with TLC. So I conclude that
> the desire among the participants to learn inside information is
> greater than their desire to be able to speak freely. Or maybe
> they haven't thought of it in those terms yet.
> (This is a general comment, not directed to any participant in
> particular.)
Well, I'm not someone under an NDA, nor have I played on on TV, but...
The simple answer is "Because LEGO Direct asked them to." and that's about
it, really. LD initiated these meetings, and it's their call how to do
them. But even aside from that, how many people here wouldn't leap at the
chance, if asked by LD: "We'd like to get your input and opinion on
(whatever), but you'll have to sign an NDA because we don't want the
information public yet"? I know I sure as heck would.
I don't think it's an ego-tripping "I know something you don't know"
thing(1), more of an "I've got a chance to meet & influence the people who
make decisions". It's this second thing that you need to weigh against 'the
desire to be able to speak freely', which is a very different balance than
what you infer above.
Like I said above, I think being able to talk to & (possibly) influence the
decision makers would be worth agreeing to LD's release schedule of
information. I think most people here would feel the same.
YMMV
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
