| The timing and content of any announcement is undoubtedly complicated, caused, in no small part, by legitimate needs for confidentiality against the goals of transparency. I have every reason to trust in the good judgment of Gerv and Kathleen in navigating that path with the interests of this community in mind. If there is more they are able to say on this matter, I hope that they will; if not, I will understand. That said, I hope someone will indeed say more about the reporting in these articles. There are 2 issues in particular that I think would be good to address at this time. The first is the use of the past tense (e.g. "has acquired") regarding the reported transaction. How much of the acquisition process has, in fact, transpired--if anything? The second is the meager explanation of what has transpired or is expected to transpire--again, if anything. Based on my understanding, there is (or will be) a change of legal ownership and leadership. Accordingly, is a review of the new ownership warranted? Bringing together a CA with a Deep Packet Inspection business certainly is...uncomfortable. It is my sincere hope that someone will come forward and provide some clarity, even if just to say this is fake news.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Peter Kurrasch via dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
Such announcements are not part of the Mozilla Policy expectations. Could you clarify why you expect such an announcement? | ||
_______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
