Ethics [was] Guinea Pigs [was] EPP [snip]

[Trent Shipley]

On Wednesday 2005-03-16 14:38, Joseph Sinclair wrote:
> Trent Shipley wrote:
> >On Monday 2005-03-14 22:21, Joseph Sinclair wrote:
> >>Trent Shipley wrote:

<big snip/>

> >>
> >>    Anyone who wants an NDA on their conversations isn't someone we want
> >>to interview, no confidentiality (although we do respect individual
> >>privacy, and names/personal data will be excised on request).
> >
> >This is at odds with most sociology that I've done, even market research.
> >Even in market research you promise participants confidentiality and try
> > to provide anonymity.  It should be impossible for an outsider to trace a
> > datum back to an individual participant.
> >
> >In anthropology or journalism you at least guarantee plausible deniability
> > and aim for real confidentiality.  Some looser ethical standards allow
> > researchers to use real names if the participant asks the researcher to
> > do so.  Publishing "vital statistics" or histories is touchy, because it
> > takes so little data to effectively identify an individual.
> >
> >(Note to self: Check ethical standards of Society for Applied Anthropology
> > and for market researchers' professional association.)
> >
> >My professional expectation is that we should gather data.  We need to
> > gather data ethically.  Most important, we need to negotiate among
> > ourselves and with participants the boundaries for gathering data.
> >
> >That said, most boiler plate NDAs are designed to be so restrictive that
> > there would be no reason to procede with research if a prospective
> > participant insisted on a non-negotiable non-disclosure agreement.
>
> I agree with your conclusions, I think you misunderstood my original
> paragraph.
> My understanding of the two terms is slightly different from yours.
> Allow me to explain more fully.
> Confidentiality implies that any information gathered will be used
> exclusively within the gathering organization, anonymity/privacy implies
> that data gathered cannot be traced back to any individual.  I fully
> support anonymity and privacy.  In fact, we probably shouldn't gather
> personal details beyond the absolute minimum required to accomplish the
> project goals.  We cannot, however, agree that the resultant
> requirements data would remain within the EPP, the documents that
> contain the resultant should be available in the same packaging as the
> source code.  I expect that all project documents will be released by
> the project under the GFDL, If there's disagreement on that, I'd like to
> hear it.  If you work with any of the major open source foundations,
> you'll find they don't sign NDA's, nor do they require others to sign
> them.  The analysis and research associated with the development effort
> is considered to be equivalent in nature to the software itself, and the
> results should be available on similar terms.

We are still not on the same page here.  

I think it may be best to leave this to the agenda for the first in-person 
meeting of the EPP development group.