A
Anonymous
Guest
Its like a phone conversation - it seems like a bad idea to record it and broadcast it, but it seems OK to tell people about the conversation. Phone conversations and in person conversations are relayed here all the time and no one seems to have an issue with those. If Peter had phoned or emailed me I would have posted about that in basically the same way.
It has been my understanding that the private in private message meant simply 'not public'. I do not believe it is an implicit NDA any more than a phone conversation is an implicit NDA. I do believe that internet decorum and common courtesy demand that the actual messages not be shared unless both parties agree.
IMO the big problem is when people share the gist of PM's and there is disagreement regarding the accuracy of that gist. In this case, I didn't see how it was possible for such disagreement to arise since the messages were so short, and I wouldn't have been upset if the shoe was on the other foot.
That said, pm's and the sharing thereof is, in the words of another admin, 'one giant, frustrating gray area' and if Peter is upset I apologize.
It has been my understanding that the private in private message meant simply 'not public'. I do not believe it is an implicit NDA any more than a phone conversation is an implicit NDA. I do believe that internet decorum and common courtesy demand that the actual messages not be shared unless both parties agree.
IMO the big problem is when people share the gist of PM's and there is disagreement regarding the accuracy of that gist. In this case, I didn't see how it was possible for such disagreement to arise since the messages were so short, and I wouldn't have been upset if the shoe was on the other foot.
That said, pm's and the sharing thereof is, in the words of another admin, 'one giant, frustrating gray area' and if Peter is upset I apologize.