On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:13 PM Ryan Sleevi <r...@sleevi.com> wrote: > > It is not clear how this follows. As my previous messages tried to > capture, the program is, and has always been, inherently subjective and > precisely designed to support discretionary decisions. These do not seem to > inherently conflict with or contradict transparency. > > Even setting aside the examples of inclusions - ones which were designed > to be based on a communal evaluation of risks and benefits - one can look > at the fact that every violation of the program rules and guidelines has > not resulted in CAs being immediately removed. Every aspect of the program, > including the audits, is discretionary in nature. > > It would be useful to understand where and how you see the conflict, > though. >
I think my disconnect arises in as far as that for the period of time in which I've tracked the program and this group, I can not recall use of subjective discretion to deny admission to the program. Any use of a subjective basis as the lead cause for not including Dark Matter would, to my admittedly limited time-window of observation in this area, be new territory. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
