On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 14:16 +0000, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > IMO it seems appropriate to have an OMC vote on this topic (or > > should it > > be OTC?). Possible wording: > > Personally, I would prefer if technical questions would by default be > discussed (and voted on) > by the OTC, unless an OMC member explicitly puts in his veto and > claims that higher level > strategical interests of the OpenSSL project are affected. > > But according to the current wording of the bylaws, I would say it is > a 'feature requirement' and > requires an OMC vote:
I do not understand this to be a 'feature requirement' - IMO if this was a 'feature requirement' it would mean that OMC decides that something must be implemented in such and such way that the OpenSSL 3.0 does this and that as a feature. But we do not do that for every feature that is being added to master. So I do not even think this requires any formal vote, unless someone from OTC or OMC calls for it explicitly. Of course it is kind-of API break but again I do not think every API break in OpenSSL 3.0 was voted upon by OMC. I mean I am definitely not against having a vote if someone feels it should be done but if nobody requires it, I do not think it would be a violation of anything if this is merged without a vote. > > The OMC: > > > > * makes all decisions regarding management and strategic direction > > of the project; including: > > - business requirements; > > - feature requirements; > > - platform requirements; > > - roadmap requirements and priority; > > - end-of-life decisions; > > - release timing and requirement decisions; > > Matthias > -- Tomáš Mráz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb [You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your conscience.]