Comment by codethief

Maybe I'm the only one here but this so-called "transparency" in the form of a single blog post doesn't instill much trust in me. I have been an avid Signal user since the TextSecure days and still recommend Signal over any other messenger. However:

- There were times (e.g. during the introduction of MobileCoin) when the Github repositories hadn't seen any update for months, while they were still releasing new app versions on a regular basis. Heck, last time I checked there were not even public changelogs for any of the apps. Calling Signal "open-source" is a stretch at best.

- The Signal team time and again has failed to react to criticism of the usage of Intel SGX, or of how they completely messed up the introduction of the Signal PIN. And let's not talk about MobileCoin. Yes, being "open-source" or "nonprofit" doesn't imply they need to ask their users for permission or respond to every complaint. However, a minimum amount of openness and debating critical features in public would go a long way here.

- I would like to see some transparency regarding the overall foundation and corporate structure, beyond just silently filing form 990 years with significant delay. For instance, it seems Brian Acton can elect and dissolve the entire board just by himself[0, 1]?

Long story short, before donating to Signal I'd like to see a proper and continuous commitment to transparency, not just a once-in-time blog post.

[0]: (German) https://www.spektrum.de/news/mythos-signal-licht-und-schatte...

[1]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824...