Amir Herzberg wrote:
I wonder: was the mere fact of you meeting with them a secret? If so,
did you get permission to disclose this secret (was it declassified)?
The existence of the meeting was not a secret.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/008126.html
It must have been `top
Doug Ludy wrote:
I am a newcomer who knows a little bit about group process. It has been
fascinating to watch this newsgroup at work--brilliant minds and
powerful egos working toward similar goals. I am reminded of a debate
in the English parliament. Rather than viewing the current impasse
Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
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.
I would like the process to be
Duane wrote:
But how can you trust a process going on behind closed door and
excluding everyone else?
We're not developing security protocols, we're developing best practices
and UI. And I am very strongly of the opinion that there needs to be a
public review process, and have made that
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
Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
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.
I would like the process to be
