On 17/04/17 18:17, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > Why the sigh? I think we should have a bright-line rule about when the > scope/date should be in the proposed ballot vs. when the scope/date must be > in > the document itself. Otherwise, the objection to including a date in the > ballot v. BR text seems arbitrary. If I understand correctly, the accepted > rule proposed is: > > 1) The only point in time action that matters is certificate issuance;
I'm not sure that's quite it. The relevant point in time action is whatever the BR requirement is about. So requirements about data gathering relate to when data is gathered; requirements about data reuse relate to when data is reused, and so on. But if you replace "certificate issuance" with "actions of this type" then the below: > 2) If BR change exempts future certificate issuance from a requirement, the > requirement date must be specified in the BR language; and > 3) If the BR change only exempts previously issued certificates, no exception > or requirement date should be included in the ballot or BR language. is entirely correct in my view. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
