Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Alex Schuilenburg]

Dear Maintainers,

I am made unclear about the policy of the maintainers to commercial
postings to eCos discuss due to the posting yesterday by John Dallaway
where I believe he is using his maintainer position to post or gather
information of a commercial nature for his company's benefit. 
Previously, the guidelines stated that such postings should contain
[COMMERCIAL] in the subject to alert subscribers to the nature of the
content.

If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not
clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research. I would
be most interested to see laid open what development plans the ecos
maintainers may have for host tool development, as has been strongly
advocated in the past.  I would also enquire as to why the results are
not being made public for the benefit of the community.

However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the
policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John
is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like
to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply
fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998.

I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and
commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard.

Sincerely
-- Alex Schuilenburg

Managing Director/CEO                                eCosCentric Limited
Tel:  +44 1223 245571                     Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive
Fax:  +44 1223 248712                             Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK
www.ecoscentric.com             Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071

Besuchen Sie uns vom 2-4 März auf der Embedded World 2010, Stand 11-208
Visit us at Embedded World 2010, Nürnberg-Germany, 2-4 Mar, Stand 11-208

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[John Dallaway]

Hi Alex

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:

> I am made unclear about the policy of the maintainers to commercial
> postings to eCos discuss due to the posting yesterday by John Dallaway
> where I believe he is using his maintainer position to post or gather
> information of a commercial nature for his company's benefit.

Perhaps I should have been clearer about my plans for this survey! My
research arises from some blue sky thinking about how open source
communities select and use embedded development tools. Assuming
sufficient participation in the survey, I'm intending to write an
article on this topic. FYI, I have requested the support of the eCos,
FreeRTOS and RTEMS communities in the research. I have received a good
response from all 3 communities so far.

I hope this helps to allay your concerns...

John Dallaway

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Alex Schuilenburg]

John,

John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Alex
>
> Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>
>   
>> I am made unclear about the policy of the maintainers to commercial
>> postings to eCos discuss due to the posting yesterday by John Dallaway
>> where I believe he is using his maintainer position to post or gather
>> information of a commercial nature for his company's benefit.
>>     
>
> Perhaps I should have been clearer about my plans for this survey! My
> research arises from some blue sky thinking about how open source
> communities select and use embedded development tools. Assuming
> sufficient participation in the survey, I'm intending to write an
> article on this topic. FYI, I have requested the support of the eCos,
> FreeRTOS and RTEMS communities in the research. I have received a good
> response from all 3 communities so far.
>
> I hope this helps to allay your concerns...
>   
My only concern is that your posting appears misleading.  You clearly
have a commercial interest in this area and have not mentioned this at
all, nor in your response. It would have been far clearer if you had
mentioned this in your original post, including what the sample base
will be, how long you are conducting the survey for, where this article
you mention is going to be published, who the intended audience of the
article is and so on. As you know, CMP conduct similar in-depth surveys
and charge interested parties for their articles.  Are you intending to
do the same?

-- Alex Schuilenburg

Managing Director/CEO                                eCosCentric Limited
Tel:  +44 1223 245571                     Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive
Fax:  +44 1223 248712                             Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK
www.ecoscentric.com             Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071
  

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 27/02/10 14:43, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Dear Maintainers,
> 
> I am made unclear about the policy of the maintainers to commercial
> postings to eCos discuss due to the posting yesterday by John Dallaway
> where I believe he is using his maintainer position to post or gather
> information of a commercial nature for his company's benefit. 
> Previously, the guidelines stated that such postings should contain
> [COMMERCIAL] in the subject to alert subscribers to the nature of the
> content.

If they are commercial or contain advertising, yes.

> If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not
> clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research.

Does it need to be? If it was like some of those spam telephone calls
one can get where they purport to be "doing a survey" (to get around
telemarketing rules) but actually doing advertising/sales, that would be
one thing. But this contains no insidious promotion, marketing or sales.
It's just a request for people to do a straightforward survey.

> I would
> be most interested to see laid open what development plans the ecos
> maintainers may have for host tool development, as has been strongly
> advocated in the past.

I think we both know that there aren't concrete plans here.

>  I would also enquire as to why the results are
> not being made public for the benefit of the community.

Apparently the results are being made available to those who enter the
survey, which is more than sufficient.

> However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the
> policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John
> is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like
> to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply
> fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998.

That's not an issue for the maintainers.

> I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and
> commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard.

No mention was made of John's company. There was no advertising, no
promotion, and results were available to those who filled in the survey.

I fully expect John to use the outcome of the survey to guide his
company's actions, but that doesn't make the post commercial IMO.

I'm afraid I really can't see a problem here.

Jifl

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 02/03/10 17:28, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> On 2010-03-02 13:53, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>> On 27/02/10 14:43, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>>> If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not
>>> clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research.
>>>     
>> Does it need to be? If it was like some of those spam telephone calls
>> one can get where they purport to be "doing a survey" (to get around
>> telemarketing rules) but actually doing advertising/sales, that would be
>> one thing. But this contains no insidious promotion, marketing or sales.
>> It's just a request for people to do a straightforward survey.
>>   
> 
> To clarify, I understood the maintainers activities and use of
> sourceware to be limited to community interest only.  If their use is
> commercial, it should clearly be noted. IMHO the survey clearly will
> benefit the commercial organisation behind it, and not necessarily the
> community, which is my point. If it is not for the benefit of the
> community and is commercial, and as I was previously told, all such
> posts should be so highlighted. If, however, posts of this nature are
> acceptable, then at least I know what the guidance is.

Lots of posts by people on the ecos lists will benefit companies, rather
than the community! :-)

>>> I would
>>> be most interested to see laid open what development plans the ecos
>>> maintainers may have for host tool development, as has been strongly
>>> advocated in the past.
>>>     
>> I think we both know that there aren't concrete plans here.
>>   
> I am not in a position to comment on this

That leaves me wondering a bit.

>>>  I would also enquire as to why the results are
>>> not being made public for the benefit of the community.
>>>     
>> Apparently the results are being made available to those who enter the
>> survey, which is more than sufficient.
>>   
> Nope, only those who provide their email addresses, which then gives the
> commercial organisation behing the survey an idea of what type of
> development is being done by that person and/or the organsiation they
> work for, and who to approach for sales etc.  John does not have to use
> the email address, just the domain is sufficient, to gain any sales
> information.
> 
> IMHO the survey should have been anonymous, with the results made
> public, to be legitimately of community interest. 

Hmm, I see your point in this bit. John, care to comment? Are the
addresses (email or IP) used for _any_ purpose other than sending out
survey results? If so, is this made clear to survey users?

>>> However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the
>>> policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John
>>> is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like
>>> to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply
>>> fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998.
>>>     
>> That's not an issue for the maintainers.
>>   
> Interesting position.

We can't know the details of laws in all the potential countries that
people may be posting from.

I'm not condoning anything if the law is being broken, but it's not the
maintainers' job to stop people submitting their own data. And clearly,
marking something as [COMMERCIAL] would make no difference to legalities.

That being said, I would hope/expect John _is_ complying with the law.
Handling personal data such as email addresses is certainly regulated by
the DPA. I don't know about the Companies Act.

>>> I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and
>>> commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard.
>>>     
>> No mention was made of John's company. There was no advertising, no
>> promotion, and results were available to those who filled in the survey.
>>
>> I fully expect John to use the outcome of the survey to guide his
>> company's actions, but that doesn't make the post commercial IMO.
>>   
> An interesting contradiction.  A posting does not have to contain
> advertising, sales or anything visible to be commercial in nature.  The
> survey is clearly of benefit to his company (as you say so yourself),
> which makes it commercial in nature. Only those who choose to provide
> their email addresses get "some" of the results, and commercial
> organisations such as eCosCentric are explicitly excluded from the
> survey (yet also have an obvious interest in the results of a legitimate
> survey).

I thought you were claiming it already wasn't legitimate ;-). Anyone
_that_ bothered to find out would fill in the survey (albeit possibly
with bogus data!).

An obvious solution by John would be to post the results to the ecos
(and other embedded) lists. It would probably be a wise move in any case
to prevent someone putting in bogus data just to get the results! John?

>  There is also a whole host of other information that can be
> gathered from the survey, IP addresses, countries of those taking part
> in the surveys, companies taking part in the survey and their main areas
> of interest, etc etc which also will not be made available, even to
> those people taking part in the survey.  This kind of information is
> invaluable to those in the marketplace, and people pay good money to
> professional survey organisations such as CMP Media to get this
> information.  I think you have underestimated what kind of information
> can be gathered from surveys...

If the survey does not make crystal clear the purposes the data gathered
may be used for, and who by, then I believe indeed it would fall foul of
Data Protection law. But again, the maintainers as a body can't be the
ones to make judgements about whether posts comply with data protection
law. I have no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. If John
can assure us that no identifiable information (primarily IP/email
addresses) is retained or used, then that would seem acceptable to me
(although I'm deliberately setting aside any legality issues here).

I very much doubt the maintainers want to go down the route of
moderating the mailing lists. Or anything which implies we are taking
responsibility for the content of the lists (there be dragons!).

> And going back to my original point.  As the survey is being conducted
> by John for the benefit of his company, I would like to know why did he
> just not say so.

I assume because the results will be distributed, and therefore not
proprietary to the company. Those who fill in the survey do "benefit"
too, so it's not just something for John. Of course that's not carte
blance to anything, as there are degrees. But from the information I've
seen so far I have no reason to assume it falls on the wrong side of the
line. IMHO anyway. But it would seem better to publicise the responses
on the lists, not just the ones who filled in the survey.

I am also now seeing your point, from a Data Protection Act POV about
knowing who (including companies) is using data, if the data is not
anonymised. But maybe it is anonymised by the time John sees it; maybe
he has no visibility of the IP addresses, or email addresses. Again from
a maintainer *policy* point of view, the default position has to be to
assume things are legitimate.

> Why did he using his personal (and maintainer) email
> address to solicit responses? Could it be because more people would
> probably respond to the survey than would if they knew there was a
> commercial organisation behind it and that this survey was for that
> company's commercial benefit?  This is what IMHO is an abuse of position
> and contradicts the guidelines given regarding commercial postings.

John's response here already says it was personal research.

Where do we draw the line with "commercial benefit"? Adverts? Research?
Surveys? Signatures? Email addresses? Indirect references? Mentioning
the company name anywhere in a post? It is too far to say there must be
/no/ commercial benefit.

>> I'm afraid I really can't see a problem here.
>>   
> If that is the case, IMHO this kind of sets a precedent as to what is
> permissible by the other maintainers and commercial organisations, which
> is contrary to what I previously was led to believe and commercially
> adhered to.  I obviously am also disappointed that the commercial nature
> and intent of the survey was not initially stated and not made obvious,

What guidelines are you thinking of?

It's true that, looking at http://ecos.sourceware.org/intouch.html there
/aren't/ any guidelines at present, which is something I should fix.
Then that may help remove uncertainties, although there will always be
grey areas.

> that it is in breach of various UK laws because of its commercial ties,
> and that this behaviour is IMHO being condoned by the maintainers.

We can't condone an allegation with insufficient information.

Jifl

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Gary Thomas]

On 03/02/2010 01:10 PM, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> On 02/03/10 17:28, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>> On 2010-03-02 13:53, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>> On 27/02/10 14:43, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>>>> If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not
>>>> clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research.
>>>>
>>> Does it need to be? If it was like some of those spam telephone calls
>>> one can get where they purport to be "doing a survey" (to get around
>>> telemarketing rules) but actually doing advertising/sales, that would be
>>> one thing. But this contains no insidious promotion, marketing or sales.
>>> It's just a request for people to do a straightforward survey.
>>>
>>
>> To clarify, I understood the maintainers activities and use of
>> sourceware to be limited to community interest only.  If their use is
>> commercial, it should clearly be noted. IMHO the survey clearly will
>> benefit the commercial organisation behind it, and not necessarily the
>> community, which is my point. If it is not for the benefit of the
>> community and is commercial, and as I was previously told, all such
>> posts should be so highlighted. If, however, posts of this nature are
>> acceptable, then at least I know what the guidance is.
>
> Lots of posts by people on the ecos lists will benefit companies, rather
> than the community! :-)
>
>>>> I would
>>>> be most interested to see laid open what development plans the ecos
>>>> maintainers may have for host tool development, as has been strongly
>>>> advocated in the past.
>>>>
>>> I think we both know that there aren't concrete plans here.
>>>
>> I am not in a position to comment on this
>
> That leaves me wondering a bit.
>
>>>>   I would also enquire as to why the results are
>>>> not being made public for the benefit of the community.
>>>>
>>> Apparently the results are being made available to those who enter the
>>> survey, which is more than sufficient.
>>>
>> Nope, only those who provide their email addresses, which then gives the
>> commercial organisation behing the survey an idea of what type of
>> development is being done by that person and/or the organsiation they
>> work for, and who to approach for sales etc.  John does not have to use
>> the email address, just the domain is sufficient, to gain any sales
>> information.
>>
>> IMHO the survey should have been anonymous, with the results made
>> public, to be legitimately of community interest.
>
> Hmm, I see your point in this bit. John, care to comment? Are the
> addresses (email or IP) used for _any_ purpose other than sending out
> survey results? If so, is this made clear to survey users?
>
>>>> However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the
>>>> policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John
>>>> is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like
>>>> to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply
>>>> fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998.
>>>>
>>> That's not an issue for the maintainers.
>>>
>> Interesting position.
>
> We can't know the details of laws in all the potential countries that
> people may be posting from.
>
> I'm not condoning anything if the law is being broken, but it's not the
> maintainers' job to stop people submitting their own data. And clearly,
> marking something as [COMMERCIAL] would make no difference to legalities.
>
> That being said, I would hope/expect John _is_ complying with the law.
> Handling personal data such as email addresses is certainly regulated by
> the DPA. I don't know about the Companies Act.
>
>>>> I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and
>>>> commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard.
>>>>
>>> No mention was made of John's company. There was no advertising, no
>>> promotion, and results were available to those who filled in the survey.
>>>
>>> I fully expect John to use the outcome of the survey to guide his
>>> company's actions, but that doesn't make the post commercial IMO.
>>>
>> An interesting contradiction.  A posting does not have to contain
>> advertising, sales or anything visible to be commercial in nature.  The
>> survey is clearly of benefit to his company (as you say so yourself),
>> which makes it commercial in nature. Only those who choose to provide
>> their email addresses get "some" of the results, and commercial
>> organisations such as eCosCentric are explicitly excluded from the
>> survey (yet also have an obvious interest in the results of a legitimate
>> survey).
>
> I thought you were claiming it already wasn't legitimate ;-). Anyone
> _that_ bothered to find out would fill in the survey (albeit possibly
> with bogus data!).
>
> An obvious solution by John would be to post the results to the ecos
> (and other embedded) lists. It would probably be a wise move in any case
> to prevent someone putting in bogus data just to get the results! John?
>
>>   There is also a whole host of other information that can be
>> gathered from the survey, IP addresses, countries of those taking part
>> in the surveys, companies taking part in the survey and their main areas
>> of interest, etc etc which also will not be made available, even to
>> those people taking part in the survey.  This kind of information is
>> invaluable to those in the marketplace, and people pay good money to
>> professional survey organisations such as CMP Media to get this
>> information.  I think you have underestimated what kind of information
>> can be gathered from surveys...
>
> If the survey does not make crystal clear the purposes the data gathered
> may be used for, and who by, then I believe indeed it would fall foul of
> Data Protection law. But again, the maintainers as a body can't be the
> ones to make judgements about whether posts comply with data protection
> law. I have no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. If John
> can assure us that no identifiable information (primarily IP/email
> addresses) is retained or used, then that would seem acceptable to me
> (although I'm deliberately setting aside any legality issues here).
>
> I very much doubt the maintainers want to go down the route of
> moderating the mailing lists. Or anything which implies we are taking
> responsibility for the content of the lists (there be dragons!).
>
>> And going back to my original point.  As the survey is being conducted
>> by John for the benefit of his company, I would like to know why did he
>> just not say so.
>
> I assume because the results will be distributed, and therefore not
> proprietary to the company. Those who fill in the survey do "benefit"
> too, so it's not just something for John. Of course that's not carte
> blance to anything, as there are degrees. But from the information I've
> seen so far I have no reason to assume it falls on the wrong side of the
> line. IMHO anyway. But it would seem better to publicise the responses
> on the lists, not just the ones who filled in the survey.
>
> I am also now seeing your point, from a Data Protection Act POV about
> knowing who (including companies) is using data, if the data is not
> anonymised. But maybe it is anonymised by the time John sees it; maybe
> he has no visibility of the IP addresses, or email addresses. Again from
> a maintainer *policy* point of view, the default position has to be to
> assume things are legitimate.
>
>> Why did he using his personal (and maintainer) email
>> address to solicit responses? Could it be because more people would
>> probably respond to the survey than would if they knew there was a
>> commercial organisation behind it and that this survey was for that
>> company's commercial benefit?  This is what IMHO is an abuse of position
>> and contradicts the guidelines given regarding commercial postings.
>
> John's response here already says it was personal research.
>
> Where do we draw the line with "commercial benefit"? Adverts? Research?
> Surveys? Signatures? Email addresses? Indirect references? Mentioning
> the company name anywhere in a post? It is too far to say there must be
> /no/ commercial benefit.
>
>>> I'm afraid I really can't see a problem here.
>>>
>> If that is the case, IMHO this kind of sets a precedent as to what is
>> permissible by the other maintainers and commercial organisations, which
>> is contrary to what I previously was led to believe and commercially
>> adhered to.  I obviously am also disappointed that the commercial nature
>> and intent of the survey was not initially stated and not made obvious,
>
> What guidelines are you thinking of?
>
> It's true that, looking at http://ecos.sourceware.org/intouch.html there
> /aren't/ any guidelines at present, which is something I should fix.
> Then that may help remove uncertainties, although there will always be
> grey areas.
>
>> that it is in breach of various UK laws because of its commercial ties,
>> and that this behaviour is IMHO being condoned by the maintainers.
>
> We can't condone an allegation with insufficient information.

I have more problems with this whole discussion than I do at all to
the original posting.  John's survey request doesn't even come close
to being considered improper or illegal in the U.S.  Additionally,
I certainly don't know about the intricacies of UK law in these areas
and most certainly am not interested in being a policeman.

There have been many postings to eCos-discuss in the past that went
even further than this that weren't labeled COMMERCIAL and I didn't
hear the uproar then.  Maybe this is just a case of fallen-out colleagues?
I don't know, but I'm done thinking about it and will probably not
continue to read this thread anymore...

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 02/03/10 23:11, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>
>> Where do we draw the line with "commercial benefit"? Adverts? Research?
>> Surveys? Signatures? Email addresses? Indirect references? Mentioning
>> the company name anywhere in a post? It is too far to say there must be
>> /no/ commercial benefit.
>>   
> Of course not, lets not get silly. I was suggesting nothing other than
> making clear the details of the survey, especially coming from a
> respected person such as a maintainer.

And what I was meaning is that the line between commercial and not
commercial may always be a bit woolly.

>> We can't condone an allegation with insufficient information.
>>   
> I not sure what you mean.

I meant really, it's over to John, as per the clarifications requested
in my previous mail.

> If you are asking me for information, then what I can say is that any
> survey taking place by, for or on behalf of a UK company has to conform
> to the DPA.  You can search for companies registered here:
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp
> 
> ICO registration of course also does not automatically make the survey
> conform to the DPA...

Ah. Again I think over to John.

Jifl

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Alex Schuilenburg]

[Apologies for the duplicate - my original got bounced, which has made
jifl's reply out of sequence]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> On 02/03/10 17:28, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>   
>> On 2010-03-02 13:53, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>     
>>> On 27/02/10 14:43, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>>>       
>>>> If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not
>>>> clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Does it need to be? If it was like some of those spam telephone calls
>>> one can get where they purport to be "doing a survey" (to get around
>>> telemarketing rules) but actually doing advertising/sales, that would be
>>> one thing. But this contains no insidious promotion, marketing or sales.
>>> It's just a request for people to do a straightforward survey.
>>>   
>>>       
>> To clarify, I understood the maintainers activities and use of
>> sourceware to be limited to community interest only.  If their use is
>> commercial, it should clearly be noted. IMHO the survey clearly will
>> benefit the commercial organisation behind it, and not necessarily the
>> community, which is my point. If it is not for the benefit of the
>> community and is commercial, and as I was previously told, all such
>> posts should be so highlighted. If, however, posts of this nature are
>> acceptable, then at least I know what the guidance is.
>>     
>
> Lots of posts by people on the ecos lists will benefit companies, rather
> than the community! :-)
>   
Companies are part of the community :-)

[...]
>>>> However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the
>>>> policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John
>>>> is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like
>>>> to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply
>>>> fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> That's not an issue for the maintainers.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Interesting position.
>>     
>
> We can't know the details of laws in all the potential countries that
> people may be posting from.
>
> I'm not condoning anything if the law is being broken, but it's not the
> maintainers' job to stop people submitting their own data. And clearly,
> marking something as [COMMERCIAL] would make no difference to legalities.
>   
Actually, it would because then no laws would have been broken.  The
communication would have been clearly marked as coming from a UK limited
company, which would have to have been registered with the ICO, which
would also then have meant that the survey would have had to comply to
UK law and contain all the necessary DPA information and follow the
regulations set up for taking public surveys.


> That being said, I would hope/expect John _is_ complying with the law.
> Handling personal data such as email addresses is certainly regulated by
> the DPA. I don't know about the Companies Act.
>
>   
>>>> I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and
>>>> commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> No mention was made of John's company. There was no advertising, no
>>> promotion, and results were available to those who filled in the survey.
>>>
>>> I fully expect John to use the outcome of the survey to guide his
>>> company's actions, but that doesn't make the post commercial IMO.
>>>   
>>>       
>> An interesting contradiction.  A posting does not have to contain
>> advertising, sales or anything visible to be commercial in nature.  The
>> survey is clearly of benefit to his company (as you say so yourself),
>> which makes it commercial in nature. Only those who choose to provide
>> their email addresses get "some" of the results, and commercial
>> organisations such as eCosCentric are explicitly excluded from the
>> survey (yet also have an obvious interest in the results of a legitimate
>> survey).
>>     
>
> I thought you were claiming it already wasn't legitimate ;-). Anyone
> _that_ bothered to find out would fill in the survey (albeit possibly
> with bogus data!).
>   
As a UK company, eCosCentric has a legal obligation to ensure that any
marketing information it obtained came from a legitimate source through
legitimate means.


>>  There is also a whole host of other information that can be
>> gathered from the survey, IP addresses, countries of those taking part
>> in the surveys, companies taking part in the survey and their main areas
>> of interest, etc etc which also will not be made available, even to
>> those people taking part in the survey.  This kind of information is
>> invaluable to those in the marketplace, and people pay good money to
>> professional survey organisations such as CMP Media to get this
>> information.  I think you have underestimated what kind of information
>> can be gathered from surveys...
>>     
>
> If the survey does not make crystal clear the purposes the data gathered
> may be used for, and who by, then I believe indeed it would fall foul of
> Data Protection law. But again, the maintainers as a body can't be the
> ones to make judgements about whether posts comply with data protection
> law. I have no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. If John
> can assure us that no identifiable information (primarily IP/email
> addresses) is retained or used, then that would seem acceptable to me
> (although I'm deliberately setting aside any legality issues here).
>
> I very much doubt the maintainers want to go down the route of
> moderating the mailing lists. Or anything which implies we are taking
> responsibility for the content of the lists (there be dragons!).
>   
Nope, I am not asking that. I would just expect the maintainers to be
self policing and to abide by the policies which they expect others to
abide by.

IMHO, eCosCentric and its maintainers get accused of all sorts far too
often, and have until now maintained a dignified silence.

>   
>> And going back to my original point.  As the survey is being conducted
>> by John for the benefit of his company, I would like to know why did he
>> just not say so.
>>     
>
> I assume because the results will be distributed, and therefore not
> proprietary to the company. Those who fill in the survey do "benefit"
> too, so it's not just something for John. Of course that's not carte
> blance to anything, as there are degrees. But from the information I've
> seen so far I have no reason to assume it falls on the wrong side of the
> line. IMHO anyway. But it would seem better to publicise the responses
> on the lists, not just the ones who filled in the survey.
>
> I am also now seeing your point, from a Data Protection Act POV about
> knowing who (including companies) is using data, if the data is not
> anonymised. But maybe it is anonymised by the time John sees it; maybe
> he has no visibility of the IP addresses, or email addresses. Again from
> a maintainer *policy* point of view, the default position has to be to
> assume things are legitimate.
>   
I would say that by default a posting by a maintainer should definitely
be assumed to be legitimate.


>> Why did he using his personal (and maintainer) email
>> address to solicit responses? Could it be because more people would
>> probably respond to the survey than would if they knew there was a
>> commercial organisation behind it and that this survey was for that
>> company's commercial benefit?  This is what IMHO is an abuse of position
>> and contradicts the guidelines given regarding commercial postings.
>>     
>
> John's response here already says it was personal research.
>
> Where do we draw the line with "commercial benefit"? Adverts? Research?
> Surveys? Signatures? Email addresses? Indirect references? Mentioning
> the company name anywhere in a post? It is too far to say there must be
> /no/ commercial benefit.
>   
Of course not, lets not get silly. I was suggesting nothing other than
making clear the details of the survey, especially coming from a
respected person such as a maintainer.


>>> I'm afraid I really can't see a problem here.
>>>   
>>>       
>> If that is the case, IMHO this kind of sets a precedent as to what is
>> permissible by the other maintainers and commercial organisations, which
>> is contrary to what I previously was led to believe and commercially
>> adhered to.  I obviously am also disappointed that the commercial nature
>> and intent of the survey was not initially stated and not made obvious,
>>     
>
> What guidelines are you thinking of?
>
> It's true that, looking at http://ecos.sourceware.org/intouch.html there
> /aren't/ any guidelines at present, which is something I should fix.
> Then that may help remove uncertainties, although there will always be
> grey areas.
>   
The guidelines were all given verbally or privately by various
maintainers at various times and regarding various topics.


>> that it is in breach of various UK laws because of its commercial ties,
>> and that this behaviour is IMHO being condoned by the maintainers.
>>     
>
> We can't condone an allegation with insufficient information.
>   
I not sure what you mean.

If you are asking me for information, then what I can say is that any
survey taking place by, for or on behalf of a UK company has to conform
to the DPA.  You can search for companies registered here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp

ICO registration of course also does not automatically make the survey
conform to the DPA...

Anyway, I have said my piece, made my point and got the information I
was after...

Thanks

-- Alex Schuilenburg

Managing Director/CEO                                eCosCentric Limited
Tel:  +44 1223 245571                     Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive
Fax:  +44 1223 248712                             Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK
www.ecoscentric.com             Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071

Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc

[Alex Schuilenburg]

[Again, apologies for the duplicate to those on direct copy]

Gary,

Gary Thomas wrote:
> [...]
> I have more problems with this whole discussion than I do at all to
> the original posting.  John's survey request doesn't even come close
> to being considered improper or illegal in the U.S.  Additionally,
> I certainly don't know about the intricacies of UK law in these areas
> and most certainly am not interested in being a policeman.
>
> There have been many postings to eCos-discuss in the past that went
> even further than this that weren't labeled COMMERCIAL and I didn't
> hear the uproar then.  Maybe this is just a case of fallen-out
> colleagues?
> I don't know, but I'm done thinking about it and will probably not
> continue to read this thread anymore...
>

I apologise for raising this topic, although it has helped address
certain issues. I will not be pursing this line anymore.

-- Alex Schuilenburg

Managing Director/CEO                                eCosCentric Limited
Tel:  +44 1223 245571                     Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive
Fax:  +44 1223 248712                             Cambridge, CB5 8UU, UK
www.ecoscentric.com             Reg in England and Wales, Reg No 4422071