I don't understand the "not publicly" part. They're just bug IDs.
Bugzilla will take care of security.
I don't understand what you mean by "operational stuff" - you mean
IT/ops ? I kind of presume you mean something else (as it seems to me
that it's fair for some IT/ops bugs to be confidential as they'll
involve office/server internals that shouldn't be public).
~ Gijs
On 13/04/2015 18:30, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
Not publicly no :) and that's why I suggest a nda-confidential or
mozillians-confidential. I would like to see more public too but for the
most part the ones I run into and have to be cc'ed on or ask about are
operational stuff but not something that demands company-confidential over
mozillians - confidential.
On Apr 13, 2015 5:25 AM, "Gijs Kruitbosch" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2015 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
In the cases of things that truly need to be company-confidential then
those could still be marked but unless a strong justification could be
given for flagging company-confidential then
bugs that would ordinarily be made company-confidential would be
mozillian-confidential.
Thoughts?
Overall, I think we overuse company-confidential and I would prefer that
more bugs became public.
Can you give a few examples of the types of bugs where you believe
company-confidential is wrong and yet they can't be public?
~ Gijs
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
