| |
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.)
I think this is a great question.... it gets to the heart of why companies
share preannounced info with the general public (or rabid fans, or some
spectrum of in between). My comments are more about the train summit but I
suspect Steve or Tim or whoever would echo some of the same thoughts on the
CAD summit.
I'll say this, it's not that we wanted to see inside information as an end
to itself. There are leak clubs for that. It's not that we wanted to come
off as privileged (well in my case, maybe a little, I just can't help it...
sometimes my ego doesn't stay completely under control. But rest assured
that's not the case with anyone else) because we got to see stuff.
It's that we and LD (at some considerable planning effort over several
months) assembled a fairly representative slice of Train fans, and LD shared
stuff with us *in order to get our reaction to it*.
I hope and believe that LD is going to use the feedback in order to refine
the offerings. Otherwise we wasted our time. Ya, we had a fun fest, and I
got to tag three names with faces that I hadn't already met, but I could
have spent my weekend other ways, as could every other participant.
I was one of the first people asked (after J2, who Brad has worked with
before since he was involved in the KidVention GMLTC thing) to the Train
Summit and I had some input into who else was asked. I did my level best to
influence the list of people to make it as representative as I could given
the number of people that could go (the original target was 6, Brad
graciously expanded it, not once but twice, to get to 9). I'm not perfect,
J2's not perfect, the rest of us aren't perfect people pickers, you could
argue that we should have had X or Y or Z but I stand behind the grouping as
representative of the target.
Hope that helps. FUT back to LD... I welcome LD's comments on this but I
think I hit the mark. (I always think that, of course...)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: NDAs
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G8nLoJ.5Iw@lugnet.com... (...) First off, good thoughts Larry, and good question, Eric. I'll attempt to add to the comments as they apply to the CAD summit. (...) I don't think anyone (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: NDAs
|
| (...) Not sure if this is the specifically right place to post this question, but here goes. Even if you (collectively) can't disclose what was discussed, can you disclose when you can disclose what was discussed? Dave! (23 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: NDAs
|
| Are they planning on having a TOWN Summit? Or Castle or Space? Gary Istok (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: NDAs
|
| Whoops, I set my followups and crossposts wrong. Anyways, I glossed over that Erik mentioned Brickfest, good idea. We'll have to wait for brickfest plans... (FYI that's in Washington DC) Tom suggested IRC/ICQ, and that came up last night at dinner (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
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
|
|
|
|
