Hi Sandy, I agree very much that any process added should "pay for itself" in terms of the value to the ecosystem that comes from additional effort on the part of reporters. I do feel, though, that the quality of reports and especially of Action Item selection and follow-up, have been to the detriment of the goals of the reporting process.
Could you elaborate on what aspects of the proposal you feel add significant complexity to initial reporting, and perhaps help us better understand how they could impact SwissSign's ability to make prompt and fulsome reports? The aviation example is one where I feel that the emphasis on follow-up investigation, auditable transparency, and evaluation of remediations points towards more rigour in the CCADB reporting process, I will say. Thanks, Mike On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM Sandy Balzer <[email protected]> wrote: > SwissSign believes that the current format addresses most key areas and > provides all necessary information. While we acknowledge that there is > always room for improvement and more detailed reporting, we would like to > stress the importance of minimizing the complexity of initial reporting. > > Industries with high learning needs from unplanned events and bugs—such as > aviation, healthcare, and software development—have shown that reducing the > complexity of opening tickets encourages quicker reporting. This approach > allows for capturing a broader range of incidents and fosters inclusive > discussions by enabling contributors across all skill levels to participate > effectively. Simplifying the reporting process also aligns with best > practices observed in high-reliability organizations, which prioritize > quick and effective responses to emerging issues. > > Additionally, we fear that the proposed "official commitments" may lead to > incident reports being written by legal departments instead of the > technical/compliance departments. > > In conclusion, we recommend keeping the complexity of initial reporting > low and standardized, as it is in the current format. This approach > supports faster reporting, broader participation, and a more inclusive and > effective learning process. > > > Kind regards > Sandy Balzer > On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 5:07:58 PM UTC+1 Mike Shaver wrote: > >> 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/add70d66-9b39-405e-ab6a-bc5b59b352e6n%40ccadb.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/add70d66-9b39-405e-ab6a-bc5b59b352e6n%40ccadb.org?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/CADQzZqsAa%3DHQzvBB_UudQN%3Da6sadZvczJ64xTEMnpPDtysMZSg%40mail.gmail.com.
