Operational: - Financial - Marketing - Events - Some roadmap/product bugs No IT/Ops makes sense much like sec bugs do.
On Apr 13, 2015 10:34 AM, "Gijs Kruitbosch" <gijskruitbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't understand the "not publicly" part. They're just bug IDs. Bugzilla will take care of security. > > I don't understand what you mean by "operational stuff" - you mean IT/ops ? I kind of presume you mean something else (as it seems to me that it's fair for some IT/ops bugs to be confidential as they'll involve office/server internals that shouldn't be public). > > ~ Gijs > > > On 13/04/2015 18:30, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >> >> Not publicly no :) and that's why I suggest a nda-confidential or >> mozillians-confidential. I would like to see more public too but for the >> most part the ones I run into and have to be cc'ed on or ask about are >> operational stuff but not something that demands company-confidential over >> mozillians - confidential. >> >> On Apr 13, 2015 5:25 AM, "Gijs Kruitbosch" <gijskruitbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 13/04/2015 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> In the cases of things that truly need to be company-confidential then >>>> those could still be marked but unless a strong justification could be >>>> given for flagging company-confidential then >>>> >>>> bugs that would ordinarily be made company-confidential would be >>>> mozillian-confidential. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> Overall, I think we overuse company-confidential and I would prefer that >> >> more bugs became public. >>> >>> >>> Can you give a few examples of the types of bugs where you believe >> >> company-confidential is wrong and yet they can't be public? >>> >>> >>> ~ Gijs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance@lists.mozilla.org >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
