I don’t know how realistic this worry is, but I’m a bit worried about scenarios like:
A signatory doesn’t share important-to-share info because they interpret the lnformation Arrangement doc (even with the added comments) as too constraining.
My sense is that there’s still a lot of ambiguity about exactly how to interpret parts of the agreement? And although the doc says it “is meant to be based on norms of good behavior in society” I don’t see a clause explicitly allowing people’s personal consciences to supersede the agreement. (I might just have missed it.)
Or: A signatory doesn’t share important-to-share info because they see the original agreement as binding, not the new “clarifications and perspective today” comments.
(I don’t know how scrupulous ex-Leveragers are about sticking to signed informal agreements, but if the agreement has moral force, I could imagine some people going ‘the author can’t arbitrarily reinterpret the agreement post facto, when the agreement didn’t specify that you have this power’.
Indeed, signing a document with binding moral force seems pretty risky to me if the author has lots of leeway to later reinterpret what parts of the agreement mean. But maybe I’m misunderstanding the social context or ethical orientation of the Leveragers—I might be reading the agreement way more strictly than anyone construed it at the time.)
Is there any reason not to just say something like ‘to the extent we have the power to void this agreement, the whole agreement is now void’? People could then still listen to their consciences, and your recommendations, about what to do next; but I’d be less worried anyone feels constrained by having signed the thing. I don’t know the late-Leverage-1.0 people well, but I currently have more faith in y’alls moral judgment than in your moral-judgment-constrained-by-this-verbal-commitment.
The main reason I could imagine it being bad to say ‘this is void now’ is if there’s an ex-Leverager you think is super irresponsible, but who you convinced to sign the agreement—someone who you’d expect to make terrible reckless decisions if they weren’t bound by the thing.
But in that case I’d still think it makes sense to void the agreement for the people who are basically sensible and well-intentioned, which is hopefully just about everyone.
I don’t see a clause explicitly allowing people’s personal consciences to supersede the agreement. (I might just have missed it.)
It seems to me “this is not a legal agreement” is basically such a clause.
The main reason I could imagine it being bad to say ‘this is void now’ is if there’s an ex-Leverager you think is super irresponsible, but who you convinced to sign the agreement—someone who you’d expect to make terrible reckless decisions if they weren’t bound by the thing.
It seems that at the end of Leverage 1.0 groups were in conflict. There’s a strong interest in that conflict not playing out in a way where different people publish private information of each other and then retaliate in kind.
It might very well be that plenty of the ex-Leverages don’t speak out because they are afraid that private information about them will be openly published in retaliation if they do.
Or: A signatory doesn’t share important-to-share info because they see the original agreement as binding, not the new “clarifications and perspective today” comments.
Given that there’s a section of (10) Expected lessening it seems strange to me to see the original agreement as infinitely binding.
• Expect that the overall need for share restrictions will diminish, and that as a result we will wind down share restrictions over time, while still maintaining protection of sensitive information and people’s privacy
• If anyone concludes in the future that stronger information management is required, they should make efforts to educate others themselves, and should expect that that might be covered by some future arrangement, not this one
I don’t know how realistic this worry is, but I’m a bit worried about scenarios like:
A signatory doesn’t share important-to-share info because they interpret the lnformation Arrangement doc (even with the added comments) as too constraining.
My sense is that there’s still a lot of ambiguity about exactly how to interpret parts of the agreement? And although the doc says it “is meant to be based on norms of good behavior in society” I don’t see a clause explicitly allowing people’s personal consciences to supersede the agreement. (I might just have missed it.)
Or: A signatory doesn’t share important-to-share info because they see the original agreement as binding, not the new “clarifications and perspective today” comments.
(I don’t know how scrupulous ex-Leveragers are about sticking to signed informal agreements, but if the agreement has moral force, I could imagine some people going ‘the author can’t arbitrarily reinterpret the agreement post facto, when the agreement didn’t specify that you have this power’.
Indeed, signing a document with binding moral force seems pretty risky to me if the author has lots of leeway to later reinterpret what parts of the agreement mean. But maybe I’m misunderstanding the social context or ethical orientation of the Leveragers—I might be reading the agreement way more strictly than anyone construed it at the time.)
Is there any reason not to just say something like ‘to the extent we have the power to void this agreement, the whole agreement is now void’? People could then still listen to their consciences, and your recommendations, about what to do next; but I’d be less worried anyone feels constrained by having signed the thing. I don’t know the late-Leverage-1.0 people well, but I currently have more faith in y’alls moral judgment than in your moral-judgment-constrained-by-this-verbal-commitment.
The main reason I could imagine it being bad to say ‘this is void now’ is if there’s an ex-Leverager you think is super irresponsible, but who you convinced to sign the agreement—someone who you’d expect to make terrible reckless decisions if they weren’t bound by the thing.
But in that case I’d still think it makes sense to void the agreement for the people who are basically sensible and well-intentioned, which is hopefully just about everyone.
It seems to me “this is not a legal agreement” is basically such a clause.
It seems that at the end of Leverage 1.0 groups were in conflict. There’s a strong interest in that conflict not playing out in a way where different people publish private information of each other and then retaliate in kind.
It might very well be that plenty of the ex-Leverages don’t speak out because they are afraid that private information about them will be openly published in retaliation if they do.
Given that there’s a section of (10) Expected lessening it seems strange to me to see the original agreement as infinitely binding.