[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments
vfournier at apple.com
Thu Nov 2 10:47:14 MST 2017
Will people know what “a similar level of transparency” to the Public Mail List” will mean? Is it up to the Working Group to make that determination? Or could someone come in and say “Hey, I see you’re using GitHub - that’s not transparent enough because it requires me to have an account and a password, and I don’t want to do that. So it’s not as transparent as the Public List."
Senior Standards Counsel
✉︎ vmf at apple.com
On Nov 2, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
On 02/11/17 13:29, Dean Coclin wrote:
> Yes, but I wasn't referring to security by obscurity. Rather, threats
> and bugs get disclosed to manufacturers all the time before they are
> made public. These are the type of things one would not want on a
> public list.
But that is the situation now with respect to the BRs, for example, and
yet we seem to manage while having a transparency requirement.
I am not saying there should be no private communication, but that the
default modes of communication for a WG are required to be transparent
ones, as is true now.
More information about the Govreform