Stuart Ballard wrote:
> I've heard multiple members of mozilla.org staff refer to Beonex as a > "vendor", which would mean that Beonex has a clear case for having a > representative in the security group based on the third option above. > (It wouldn't *have* to be you, but it *could* be, and presumably (Frank, > can you confirm this?) it would be your choice). I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I certainly would consider it a good thing to have a Beonex representative in the security bug group; my intent was definitely *not* to have it be a "big company club". I would also support having representation from non-commercial projects like Debian, Galeon, K-Meleon, etc. Again, this security bug group is not intended as a small 5-10 person group. As I wrote in an earlier message, I could see it eventually growing to at least a few dozen people in size. > This would mean, also, that an "I distribute a mozilla-based product > that has no other representation in the security group" would be valid > as one of those "legitimate reasons" for applying for the security > group. Yes, IMO. Frank -- Frank Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
