Given what the post said about the NDA that people signed when leaving, it seems to me like explictely releasing people from that NDA (maybe with a provision to anonymize names of other people) would be very helpful for having a productive discussion that can integrate the experiences of many people into public knowledge and create a shared understanding of what happened.
Geoff, in relation your recent livestream, which was on the topic of helping to craft good incentives so people can speak up, could you comment on the state of the NDAs, and, if people have not yet been released from them, whether or not you will explicitly release people from them in order to facilitate discussion about Leverage? And if not, why not?
Given your emphasis on symmetry (of incentivizing both positive and negative accounts), it would seem obviously necessary to release people from an agreement to “be generally positive about each other” (the very first agreement in the document), which they may still feel bound by, in order to unbias incentives. Cf. the questions and concerns raised in Rob’s comment, which remain pertinent.
Given what the post said about the NDA that people signed when leaving, it seems to me like explictely releasing people from that NDA (maybe with a provision to anonymize names of other people) would be very helpful for having a productive discussion that can integrate the experiences of many people into public knowledge and create a shared understanding of what happened.
Geoff, in relation your recent livestream, which was on the topic of helping to craft good incentives so people can speak up, could you comment on the state of the NDAs, and, if people have not yet been released from them, whether or not you will explicitly release people from them in order to facilitate discussion about Leverage? And if not, why not?
Given your emphasis on symmetry (of incentivizing both positive and negative accounts), it would seem obviously necessary to release people from an agreement to “be generally positive about each other” (the very first agreement in the document), which they may still feel bound by, in order to unbias incentives. Cf. the questions and concerns raised in Rob’s comment, which remain pertinent.