new list for open discussion of anti-phishing
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 forum, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. This is for anybody interested in further discussing these issues; thanks! I am sure that some of the people in the `closed` group will also join/follow the open forum, and certainly hope that Gerv will. In particular, this list is an appropriate forum for feedback on our proposal (TrustBar) and other proposals, for developing agreed-upon criteria, etc For info or to join: http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/anti-fraud You (mozilla, you, everyone within) are not playing fair. 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. This is not the way to encourage innovation. In fact, this situation, which was not even disclosed openly during this lengthy discussion, puts Heikki's advice on `develop code` in rather strange light. I'm not planning to stop coding (yet), but I think you should have indicated that at least the Mozilla group thinks that working in a closed committee will be more effective (and is unlikely to evaluate the code - as seems the case). Best, Amir Herzberg See the new TrustBar homepage at http://AmirHerzberg.com/TrustBar ___ Mozilla-security mailing list Mozilla-security@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
new anti-fraud mailing list for discussing improving browser security UI
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 forum, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. This is for anybody interested in further discussing these issues; thanks! I am sure that some of the people in the `closed` group will also join/follow the open forum, and certainly hope that Gerv will. In particular, this list is an appropriate forum for feedback on our proposal (TrustBar) and other proposals, for developing agreed-upon criteria, etc For info or to join: http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/anti-fraud You (mozilla, you, everyone within) are not playing fair. 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. This is not the way to encourage innovation. Best, Amir Herzberg See the new TrustBar homepage at http://AmirHerzberg.com/TrustBar ___ Mozilla-security mailing list Mozilla-security@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
Re: new anti-fraud mailing list for discussing improving browser security UI
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 more open. I hope and expect that in the future, it will be. However, to achieve the goal, it can't be open right now. This is not the way to encourage innovation. In fact, this situation, which was not even disclosed openly during this lengthy discussion, As I said, some of those involved are reticent about their involvement. And I hope the occupants of this newsgroup won't go shooting their mouths off in blogs and on Slashdot. puts Heikki's advice on `develop code` in rather strange light. Not at all. Just because we're not in a position to accept your code now doesn't mean it's not valuable. I'm not planning to stop coding (yet), but I think you should have indicated that at least the Mozilla group thinks that working in a closed committee will be more effective Please don't make it so black and white - it's not. I personally don't think a closed group is any more effective, but I'm not the only person with a view on the question. Gerv 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 in terms of betrayal and trickery I think a more charitable approach might be the model of culture clash. How does a group accustomed to open process communicate and negotiate with another group whose approach is proprietary and secretive? What rules apply? Which compromises are life-enhancing rather that life-threatening? This is a very old dilemma. I sincerely hope this discussion continues, for trust is important to me. ___ Mozilla-security mailing list Mozilla-security@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
