I have now asked the board to take a decision in this matter.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Oliver Propst oliver.pro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, its great to see the all the activities around the upcoming Board
election, I hope we still are able to focus on day-today things.
There is right
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 20:24 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I'm basically satisfied as long as our Bugzilla uses SSL
Our Bugzilla has many other flaws as we run an unsupported version.
andre
--
Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 20:24 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 00:33 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
snip
(It'd also be a bit silly to run a $2 privacy campaign and then not
participate in this, but I guess there are real disadvantages to
abusing SSL: increased power costs,
I agree whole heartidly that this is a valuable and good use of GNOME
time and resources. As a free software project ostensibly committed to
freedom, privacy and security, it behooves us to participate.
Emily Gonyer
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Oliver Propst oliver.pro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:39 +0200, Oliver Propst wrote:
This would include:
Display a banner on GNOME.org, 5 June with link to
https://www.resetthenet.org/
Promote our participation on the campaign website
Promote our our participation and our work in this area in our own
channels
2014-05-20 21:47 GMT+02:00 Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org:
Currently gnome.org does not even use HTTPS by default, let alone HSTS
or PFS. If we are planning to endorse this campaign, I think we should
also implement their recommendations.
Assuming gnome.org stands for www.gnome.org
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 00:33 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
Assuming gnome.org stands for www.gnome.org I'm asking you whether it
makes sense to abuse the use of SSL even when not really needed?
From your response, I can see that you're concerned primarily with
protecting users' personal information.
