[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Nov 1 13:23:19 MST 2017

Hi Gerv,

Perhaps you could propose some language that would allow the level of transparency you desire, while not burdening the WGs with micromanagement of their communications.  Thanks.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com

On Nov 1, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

On 01/11/17 18:00, Dean Coclin wrote:
> A working group has to be approved by the Forum members. This is what
> would stop a WG from doing what you suggest.

Well, not necessarily. It depends how strongly the commitment to
transparency is among the particular members involved. But transparency
should not be optional for a standards-setting body. The current
transparency rules were the result of a long push to ensure transparency
of Forum operations several years ago, and I do not want to see that
rolled back.

> Also, there may be legitimate reasons to have a closed mailing list.
> I recall when we did code signing that we were discussing items that
> would be of interest to people that would want to hack the system.
> Hence an open list was not in the best interest of the group.

If the security of a system depends on aspects of its operation being
secret, then it's not secure.


More information about the Govreform mailing list