Eric, I am not going to be gaslighted here.
Just what was your email supposed to do other than "suppressing dialogue within this community"? I was making no threat, but if I was still working for a CA, I would certainly get the impression that you were threatening me. The bullying and unprofessional behavior of a certain individual is one of the reasons I have stopped engaging in CABForum, an organization I co-founded. My contributions to this industry began in 1992 when I began working on the Web with Tim Berners-Lee at CERN. The fact that employees who work on what is the third largest browser also participate in the technical and policy discussions of the third largest browser which is also the only multi-party competitor should be a serious concern to Google and Mozilla. It is a clear anti-Trust liability to both concerns. People here might think that convenient, but it is not the sort of arrangement I for one would like to be having to defend in Congressional hearings. As I said, I do not make threats. My concern here is that we have lost public confidence. We are no longer the heroes we once were and politicians in your own party are now running against 'Big Tech'. We already had DoH raised in the House this week and there is more to come. We have six months at most to put our house in order. On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:29 PM Eric Mill <e...@konklone.com> wrote: > Phillip, that was an unprofessional contribution to this list, that could > be read as a legal threat, and could contribute to suppressing dialogue > within this community. And, given that the employee to which it is clear > you are referring is not only a respected community member, but literally a > peer of the Mozilla Root Program, it is particularly unhelpful to Mozilla's > basic operations. > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:33 AM Phillip Hallam-Baker via > dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:49 PM Matt Palmer via dev-security-policy < >> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:35:52PM -0700, Kirk Hall via >> > dev-security-policy wrote: >> > > I also have a question for Mozilla on the removal of the EV UI. >> > >> > This is a mischaracterisation. The EV UI has not been removed, it has >> been >> > moved to a new location. >> > >> > > So my question to Mozilla is, why did Mozilla post this as a subject >> on >> > > the mozilla.dev.security.policy list if it didn't plan to interact >> with >> > > members of the community who took the time to post responses? >> > >> > What leads you to believe that Mozilla didn't plan to interact with >> members >> > of the community? It is entirely plausible that if any useful responses >> > that warranted interaction were made, interaction would have occurred. >> > >> > I don't believe that Mozilla is obliged to respond to people who have >> > nothing useful to contribute, and who don't accurately describe the >> change >> > being made. >> > >> > > This issue started with a posting by Mozilla on August 12, but despite >> > 237 >> > > subsequent postings from many members of the Mozilla community, I >> don't >> > > think Mozilla staff ever responded to anything or anyone - not to >> explain >> > > or justify the decision, not to argue. Just silence. >> > >> > I think the decision was explained and justified in the initial >> > announcement. No information that contradicted the provided >> justification >> > was presented, so I don't see what argument was required. >> > >> > > In the future, if Mozilla has already made up its mind and is not >> > > interested in hearing back from the community, it might be better NOT >> to >> > > start a discussion on the list soliciting feedback. >> > >> > Soliciting feedback and hearing back from the community does not require >> > response from Mozilla, merely reading. Do you have any evidence that >> > Mozilla staff did not, in fact, read the feedback that was given? >> > >> >> If you are representing yourselves as having an open process, the lack of >> response on the list does undermine that claim. The lack of interaction on >> that particular topic actually speaks volumes. >> >> Both parties in Congress have already signalled that they intend to go >> after 'big tech'. Security is an obvious issue to focus on. While it is >> unlikely Mozilla will be a target of those discussions, Google certainly >> is >> and one employee in particular. >> >> This is the point at which the smart people are going to lawyer up. >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-security-policy mailing list >> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy >> > > > -- > Eric Mill > 617-314-0966 | konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone> > _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
