I agree with what Tomàš said, and that is the reason why I convoluted them in a single vote: we need to merge or reject the PR based on a policy, but if we do 2 separate votes we risk to create delays in the already quite loaded development cycles left!
Nicola On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 10:53 Tomas Mraz <to...@openssl.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 08:44 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > > On 08/04/2021 18:02, Nicola Tuveri wrote: > > > Proposed vote text > > > ================== > > > > > > Do not merge PR#14759, prevent declaring properties similar to > > > `blinding=yes` or `consttime=yes` in our implementations and > > > discourage 3rd parties from adopting similar designs. > > > > I think this vote tries to cover too much ground in a single vote. I > > would prefer to see a simple vote of "Do not merge PR#14759" > > *possibly* > > followed up by separate votes on what our own policies should be for > > provider implementations, and what we should or should not encourage > > 3rd > > parties to do. > > I disagree partially. IMO we should primarily have a policy vote and > the closing or merging of PR#14759 should come out of it naturally. > > -- > 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.] > > >
