According to https://wiki.cabforum.org/ballots, it should be FORUM-11
Dimitris.
On 2020-05-21 1:19 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
*To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CABforum1
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
