Oh, and the ballot number will need to be updated - I'm not sure how both collided on 'FORUM-12' (Dimitris' Bylaws ballot and this)
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:18 PM Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: > >> I’m willing to drop the scope statement based on Thursday’s discussion >> and the addition of the paragraph I suggested to the introduction, which >> describes much of the same thing in a form that seems more acceptable to >> most. Clint and Wayne, are you ok with that? >> >> >> >> On the subject of redlines, //github_redline_guide is not normative, so I >> disagree that it is not a valid Ballot. But that’s not really important, >> because I’m more than happy to improve the ballot by fixing the link. >> > > While I realize we end up frequently discussing this, I think you may have > missed that this was a different scenario than you may have realized. > > If your ballot had included the full text, then I agree, the redline link > was not normative. However, your ballot just pointed to a link, and so that > made the link itself normative. The contents of the link were not actually > a charter, they were just a few edits. That's why it wasn't really a > "Ballot". > > This is easily fixed in the next run. You can paste the full text, as I > think you're one of the folks who still prefers to do so, despite the > risks, or you could provide the full link to all the edits, which will at > least include a "full charter". Just a single commit on its own, or "as of > this revision", can end up being ambiguous :) In the future, the > infrastructure WG efforts will certainly make this easier, and it's not > difficult to imagine an easy "create a ballot for me" that provides the > PDF, docx, and patch file and stable link, so appreciate your patience :) > > >> Assuming Clint and Wayne sign off, please merge the change, and I’ll >> update the ballot. >> > > One more set of issues, now that scope has been finalized, that came up on > another review cycle: > https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/22/files > > >> >> >> -Tim >> >> >> >> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM >> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; CABforum1 < >> public@cabforum.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME >> Certificates Working Group >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public < >> public@cabforum.org> wrote: >> >> Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot in accordance with section 5.3 >> of the Bylaws, the S/MIME Certificates Working Group (“SMWG”) is created to >> perform the activities as specified in the Charter, with the Charter as >> described here ( >> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177 >> ). >> >> >> >> Just to be clear: This link doesn't match the link for a valid proposal, >> so I don't think this is a valid Ballot yet. >> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide is helpful, but any >> suggestions for improvements are welcome. >> >> >> >> The immutable link is >> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/6e0b8e61590164eb2d686ddcf266b189f46fc636...2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177 >> >> >> >> The pull request is still https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167 >> >> >> >> Again, our concern is that the statement that "non-publicly trusted >> S/MIME certificates are out of scope" accomplishes nothing valuable, and >> causes real harm. That is, either it fails to keep anything out of scope >> due to its definition, OR limits the discussion to being impossible to >> introduce any new requirements due to, by definition, anything not in the >> existing documents is out of scope. Neither of these scenarios are good, >> and the risk of harm outweighs any benefits. We remain committed to trying >> to work with you and understand your goals, to find language that better >> captures those goals without the problematic ambiguity and harm of what's >> being proposed. >> >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public