Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
This is clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser
vendors, we are together working out the most appropriate UI and then
all implementing it.
That's fine, but of course not currently an open process. Duane kindly
setup an open forum, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. This
is for anybody interested in further discussing these issues; thanks! I
am sure that some of the people in the `closed` group will also
join/follow the open forum, and certainly hope that Gerv will. In
particular, this list is an appropriate forum for feedback on our
proposal (TrustBar) and other proposals, for developing agreed-upon
criteria, etc....
For info or to join:
http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/anti-fraud
You (mozilla, you, everyone within) are not playing fair.
It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
suboptimal. This is not the way to encourage innovation. In fact, this
situation, which was not even disclosed openly during this lengthy
discussion, puts Heikki's advice on `develop code` in rather strange
light. I'm not planning to stop coding (yet), but I think you should
have indicated that at least the Mozilla group thinks that working in a
closed committee will be more effective (and is unlikely to evaluate the
code - as seems the case).
Best, Amir Herzberg
See the new TrustBar homepage at http://AmirHerzberg.com/TrustBar
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
