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
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.