There is a bit of a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing going on here, though.
I do think we need to do a better job of discriminating between critical, blocking issues, and issues that can be resolved after the ballot. -Tim From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:39 AM To: Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; Dean Coclin <dean.coc...@digicert.com>; Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org <mailto:g...@mozilla.org> > wrote: On 05/02/18 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's > worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to > allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an > IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity > of the Forum. Failure by whom? There have been innumerable rounds of review, and calls for review, and pleadings for review. At what point do we stop? How would you judge it? What would be your ballot triggers? And there's also been continued changes and corrections which themselves introduce new issues.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
