Further discussion on "availability" arguement

[K404]

Please keep this one focussed.

 

The only rule in regard to availability is based around NDA.

 

HWB quotes:

 

So, what criterium can be used to determine if the hardware is unreleased or not? What we look at is if there’s some kind of NDA on the product or on any of the technologies the product is using. If both questions are negative, then there’s no problem to receive points.

 

(http://hwbot.org/news/1656_clarification_regarding_unreleased_technology_and_hwboints)

 

 

 

First of all, we believe that using new, unreleased, non-available technology is in conflict with one of the main principles of the HWBoints concept which states that the competition is (as) open (as possible) to everyone. We are aware of the fact that a lot of side notes can be made to this principle as you do in fact need a certain amount of financial input to compete at the very top, but using unreleased technology, which might annihilate the current top benchmark results, is even a step further as it’s available to only a very select group of people within the enthusiast community.

 

 

(http://hwbot.org/news/1166_unreleased_technology_not_applicable_for_hwboints)

 

 

 

 

Would people in the community like to discuss whether, after 2 years, the rule needs looked at again, to minimise/avoid (I wish) conflict over future releases/ paper releases?

 

 

The options:

 

The NDA-only rule is fine.

NDA rule is a good start, but I would like to see extra rules discussed and added if suitable

 

 

Remember: "NDA rule only" means that a product can have NDA lifted but never be released to market, meaning those with review samples or strong company contacts have an edge. Some products will not matter in 6 months, some will.

[K404]

Fail! Missed the "add poll" box.

 

Please ignore/close/laugh at me

[Sweet]

Please ignore/close/laugh at me