I get the sentiment, but that's just not practical in all cases. Not everything we can share with employees can be shared with community members, signed NDA or no. That's the reality of commercial partnerships, and it's simply not viable to demand that every potential partner share our bias toward openness.
That said, Bugzilla is not the right level to have this discussion. How we control/grant access to sensitive information should be the subject of overall policy and guidance that applies across all systems and groups. We must balance risk and reward in terms of who we share information with, especially for any information involving partners. There are people looking at creating a clear taxonomy for dealing with various forms of sensitive information (primarily tied to partnerships and our legal obligations therein), which I consider to be an important prerequisite for any discussion about bug groups or implementation details. I strongly agree with the sentiment that we should strive to be more open where possible and where openness will help us collectively act in the interests of the mission. My belief is that's going to be a much easier conversation to have once we have a workable taxonomy we can look at and discuss. Given that, I'd like to propose that we table this conversation until that taxonomy is ready for discussion. -- Mike On 14 April 2015 at 16:06, Robert Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > Benjamin Kerensa schrieb: > >> Not publicly no :) and that's why I suggest a nda-confidential or >> mozillians-confidential. >> > > FWI, I support the idea of replacing mozilla-employee-confidential with > nda-confidential. > > KaiRo > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
