I agree. I think that it's fine for representatives to have their own voice in the discussions, as long as it's clear when they are speaking officially for their employer and when they are providing their personal context on an issue. I think many in the community (myself included) prefer to converse with other people rather than abstract corporate entities, when possible.
That said, it's important that critique of a company/organization's practices not be confused with criticism of the individual. (Such individual criticism might be appropriate, if it's about that individual's behaviour or personal statements, but it should be considered distinct from criticism of their employer's practices or undertakings, IMO.) Mike On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 4:01 AM 'Martijn Katerbarg' via CCADB Public < [email protected]> wrote: > Ryan, all, > > > > We’ve added feedback to the GitHub Pull Request for anything addressing > the proposed language. > > > > Besides that, we wanted to provide feedback to the recommendations the > CCADB Steering Committee is considering. > > > > >To better encourage blamelessness, when posting incident reports or > responding to comments on incident reports for which they are affiliated, > participants are encouraged to respond from a Bugzilla account associated > with one of the CA e-mail aliases disclosed to the CCADB, rather than an > individual contributor’s account. Some CAs already do this, and we’d like > this to become a standard practice. > > >To better respect a desire for individual privacy and potential risk of > retaliation, individuals participating in the incident reporting process > should feel welcome to participate responsibly from an account that does > not identify the individual posting or their organizational affiliation. > > > > We certainly see and agree that both the items above are practices that > should be allowed, for a multitude of reasons. However, we would also like > to raise that there are members and participants who prefer using their > direct names and accounts. In some cases we believe seeing who posts can > make a difference in context and on how a comment can be interpreted. > > > > With that in mind, we would like to see the quoted to-be-considered > recommendations moved to a “clear allowance” state. If the CCADB Steering > Committee feels strongly about making this a recommendation, we would > request adding (and keeping) an allowance for deviating from such behavior > as well. > > > > Regards, > > Martijn Katerbarg > Sectigo > > > > *From: *'Ryan Dickson' via CCADB Public <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, 12 December 2024 at 22:16 > *To: *public <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Further Improving the CCADB Incident Reporting Guidelines > (FEEDBACK REQUESTED) > > Hi everyone, Thanks to some early feedback from members of the community, > we’ve made a few updates to the proposal made in the original Pull Request. > The updated proposal is available here. We’ve closed the original Pull > Request, but will allow > > Hi everyone, > > > > Thanks to some early feedback from members of the community, we’ve made a > few updates to the proposal made in the original > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/mozilla/www.ccadb.org/pull/186__;!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0ZJMWOz6w$> > Pull Request. > > > > The updated proposal is available here > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/mozilla/www.ccadb.org/pull/187__;!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0YKJvLKAg$>. > We’ve closed the original Pull Request, but will allow it to persist to > help describe changes between versions and retain community feedback. > > > > Again, these changes should not be considered “final”, but instead a “work > in-progress” that we hope to enhance through continued community > contributions. We welcome your feedback on these proposed updates and > recommendations by *January 15, 2025*. Please share your thoughts by > replying to this email or, preferably, by suggesting edits directly on > GitHub. > > > > Thanks, > > Ryan (on behalf of the CCADB Steering Committee) > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:21 PM Ryan Dickson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > In October 2023 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/g/public/c/jYNpX4rGLvk/m/dJ_OcBiuAAAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0ZwoXM9VA$>, > the CCADB Steering Committee, with valuable feedback from this community, > updated the CCADB Incident Reporting Guidelines > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ccadb.org/cas/incident-report__;!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0YbSHgEpQ$> > (IRGs). While the resulting updates have led to some reports becoming more > useful and effective, Root Store Operators have continued to stress the > importance of high-quality incident reports during CA/Browser Forum > Face-to-Face updates and elsewhere. > > > > In the spirit of continuous improvement, the CCADB Steering Committee has > worked over the past few months to further enhance the effectiveness of the > IRGs. > > > > *Objectives for this update to the IRGs include:* > > - Clarifying Root Store Operator expectations > - Aligning report format and content with those expectations > - Improving clarity regarding the difference between “preliminary" and > “full" reports, and the timelines for disclosing these reports > - Improving Root Cause Analysis > - Tracking commitments made by CA Owners in response to incidents > - Increasing accountability and generating more actionable insights > - Improving consistency in report quality > - Emphasizing continuous improvement and lessons learned > - Encouraging familiarity with historical incident reports > - Defining a standard process for closing reports > - Aligning the incident reporting format with Steering Committee > objectives planned for 2025+ > > > > The set of proposed updates are available here > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/mozilla/www.ccadb.org/pull/186__;!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0ZJMWOz6w$> > . > > > > *Beyond the above changes, we are considering making the following > recommendations:* > > - *To better encourage blamelessness*, when posting incident reports > or responding to comments on incident reports for which they are > affiliated, participants are encouraged to respond from a Bugzilla account > associated with one of the CA e-mail aliases disclosed to the CCADB, rather > than an individual contributor’s account. Some CAs already do this, and > we’d like this to become a standard practice. > - *To better respect a desire for individual privacy and potential > risk of retaliation*, individuals participating in the incident > reporting process should feel welcome to participate responsibly from an > account that does not identify the individual posting or their > organizational affiliation. > > > > These proposals should not be considered “final”, but instead a “work > in-progress” that we hope to enhance through community contributions. We > welcome your feedback on these proposed updates and recommendations *by > January 15, 2025*. Please share your thoughts by replying to this email > or, preferably, by suggesting edits directly on GitHub. > > > > Thanks, > > Ryan (on behalf of the CCADB Steering Committee) > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CCADB Public" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CADEW5O8hJvwpZZkCJweoFfDqy%2B0k50-iV76D3qXnWFJv0PWi_w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CADEW5O8hJvwpZZkCJweoFfDqy*2B0k50-iV76D3qXnWFJv0PWi_w*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSU!!J5K_pWsD!1khFuVobkXFBt8Hz7m6TrZt5YaJ717PuqWJATDrBeslFYRIJ48nr6Rb6rcs0letIqU2kjuYqTPSYk0YeQO91iw$> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CCADB Public" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/SA1PR17MB6503876E59709A10E5519618E3022%40SA1PR17MB6503.namprd17.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/SA1PR17MB6503876E59709A10E5519618E3022%40SA1PR17MB6503.namprd17.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCADB Public" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/CADQzZqtnDWdN3P2vvx9GeTD%3DB%2Bnv%2B8xPibDT3arXHikn1HeZdg%40mail.gmail.com.
