We don't need a vote on the PR.
If we make the policy vote, it would be against policy to include it.
Pauli
On 9/4/21 9:24 pm, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
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
<mailto: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.]
