On 14/04/15 21:47, Mike Connor wrote: > I get the sentiment, but that's just not practical in all cases.
Sure. So let's evaluate each case and see where it is practical. I'm fairly sure it is practical in at least some of the cases under discussion. > 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. Is there an identified group working on this taxonomy? Is it part of their quarterly goals? Are there ways to track their progress, and provide input into their workings? (Without those things, all the above runs the risk of sounding like "We're going to apply stop energy to this improvement because we are doing a bigger change which may actually never happen.") Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
