Yes but the OP was "I did and don’t feel like Rachel’s responses were sufficiently considered" - and it's hard to consider answers which are "I can't answer".
That's exactly my point. People asking the questions are awfully entitled to answers that fit their narrative or expectations of the events. Saying "that would be speculation and I'm not going to engage in speculation" is a direct answer, and a rather mature one at that. Nobody is entitled to somebody else's speculation. But in this thread it seems that answer wasn't appropriate. Again, my point is that Rachel did answer but everyone immediately dismissed her answers and her being passive aggressive when in reality she seemed to be acting in good faith and divulging as much as she could responsibly and factually.
Anyone responsible for running a CA with a root cert should be willing to answer any reasonable question that the public can dream up. The fact that they were unwilling to provide basic information is a huge red flag.
She was evasive and dishonest, and omitted answers to the real questions that needed to be answered, and tried to cover for that by inventing concern for responsible disclosure inappropriate for the forum.
