Thank you for bringing this up, Nelson. I would hope that your observation (as a much larger figure in the Mozilla organization than I or Eddy or much of anyone else) and worry will carry more weight than the people outside the inner circle.
-Kyle H On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Nelson B Bolyard <nel...@bolyard.me> wrote: > I'd post this in the policy working group, if that was operational ... :( > > In <f790af94-3997-43b6-a5aa-a4d79119c...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com> > our esteemed Kathleen Wilson <kathleen95...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> According to https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:How_to_apply >> "If there are no open issues or action items after the first >> discussion period, and there is general agreement that you comply with >> our policy requirements, then at the Foundation's discretion the >> second phase of public discussion may be skipped, the request will be >> immediately approved, and the request will move into the inclusion >> phase…" > > While I do not wish in any way to question or reduce the value of > Kathleen's evaluation, I wonder if it is right for us to allow CA > applications to be approved in the absence of any real public discussion. > > In the complete absence of any discussion, positive or negative, does it > seem right to allow CAs to go into the list by default? Should we have a > quorum requirement, of some sort, requiring pasticipation by at least N > members before allowing approval? > > It bothers me that a CA might get into the list simply because no one > (besides Kathleen) had (or took) the time to seriously evaluation the > application. This seems especially problematic given that it appears > to be nigh unto impossible to remove a CA from the list. > -- > dev-tech-crypto mailing list > dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto -- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
