6 ms·

It's quite a funny example of corporate culture running headlong into geek culture, because in this case geek culture has the upper hand. I feel that in other c

by flir 4y ago

It's quite a funny example of corporate culture running headlong into geek culture, because in this case geek culture has the upper hand. I feel that in other circumstances, the geeks trying to get a straight answer would be labelled "difficult" and routed around.

ethbr0 4y ago
It's not very amusing to me that geek culture can't handle objectively reading writing from a discipline other than their own. Imho, Matthew Hardeman makes the best point in the entire thread: "Something that yet again concerns me in this discussion is an issue that I touched on previously in the discussions related to Dark Matter: that unless the program is requiring transparency as to corporate governance and management/operations authority, and establishing a basis for trust and accountability at the level of those individuals empowered by participation in the program, I believe we will continue to see these subjective trust decisions again and again. [...] I once again humbly submit that I believe the executive and operational management teams of the CAs in the programs should be required to submit to the root program personal attestations as to their position and authority along with a commitment to inform the program promptly if anything has altered or replaced their authority. I believe there should be an explicit understanding that failures by such person(s) would be held against such person(s) individually and would bar their involvement at other trusted CAs for an indefinite period. I yet again advocate for a measurable standard for holding CAs accountable at the executive management / operations level with costs taxed upon those persons who have made commitments to the program and failed to honor them. It seems likely to me that one or more presently included CA could be reasonably described as owned by Blackrock or Vanguard. [...]"
- salawat 4y ago
  This is why the CA "Web of Trust" model was dead on arrival, and we really should be doubling down on trying to render cryptography, and building personal trust networks approachable for the layman. That would upset far to many balances/be way too hard however.
puffoflogic 4y ago
I interpreted TrustCor's replies as sending up increasingly frantic "please route around!" signals and shock that this wasn't happening.
- flir 4y ago
  Can you expand on this take? I'm not sure I get it, and I'd like to.
ikiris 4y ago
Even now you can see in this thread some people going waaayyyy out of their way to try to pretend like this CA is an embattled party on an island and companies that aren't the CA don't matter even when they share entire officer structures, dev teams, etc. It's wild.

by flir 4y ago

ethbr0 4y ago

It's not very amusing to me that geek culture can't handle objectively reading writing from a discipline other than their own. Imho, Matthew Hardeman makes the best point in the entire thread: "Something that yet again concerns me in this discussion is an issue that I touched on previously in the discussions related to Dark Matter: that unless the program is requiring transparency as to corporate governance and management/operations authority, and establishing a basis for trust and accountability at the level of those individuals empowered by participation in the program, I believe we will continue to see these subjective trust decisions again and again. [...] I once again humbly submit that I believe the executive and operational management teams of the CAs in the programs should be required to submit to the root program personal attestations as to their position and authority along with a commitment to inform the program promptly if anything has altered or replaced their authority. I believe there should be an explicit understanding that failures by such person(s) would be held against such person(s) individually and would bar their involvement at other trusted CAs for an indefinite period. I yet again advocate for a measurable standard for holding CAs accountable at the executive management / operations level with costs taxed upon those persons who have made commitments to the program and failed to honor them. It seems likely to me that one or more presently included CA could be reasonably described as owned by Blackrock or Vanguard. [...]"

salawat 4y ago
This is why the CA "Web of Trust" model was dead on arrival, and we really should be doubling down on trying to render cryptography, and building personal trust networks approachable for the layman. That would upset far to many balances/be way too hard however.

puffoflogic 4y ago

I interpreted TrustCor's replies as sending up increasingly frantic "please route around!" signals and shock that this wasn't happening.

flir 4y ago
Can you expand on this take? I'm not sure I get it, and I'd like to.

ikiris 4y ago

Even now you can see in this thread some people going waaayyyy out of their way to try to pretend like this CA is an embattled party on an island and companies that aren't the CA don't matter even when they share entire officer structures, dev teams, etc. It's wild.