On Dec 26, 4:40 pm, Ian G <i...@iang.org> wrote: With respect:
> This is a forum for the discussion of technical, crypto, root and general PKI > issues, by either dictat or convention. It is not a forum for the airing of > general > business complaints. Are you characterizing this issue as merely a general business complaint? I happen to agree that this should not be the forum for such discussion, but as you point out, there is no other apparent forum for dispute resolution. Where should such discussions be taken? > Having appreciated this point, a more interesting one is whether we as a > community think about opening up the processes for more open governance, > more open scrutiny, more stakeholder checking [1]. My first reaction would be: most definitely, +1. That said, you have classified this discussion as a public lynching of a CA, called into question the professionalism of those engaging in such discussion, and identified potential legal liabilities in doing so. My question to you would be: assuming the issues you raised are legitimate (I happen to disagree) how could such an open governance model cope with the restrictions that would most certainly be necessary to address the issues you raised? > Would we be in a position to explore a general opening of all auditing > investigations and controls [2] ? +1 _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
