On 14/9/2020 8:08 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the "what", but it's not clear the "why".
The act of combining ballots is relatively new, as you can see from
https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/ . Producing
multiple versions of the Guidelines, linear based on when the Ballot
concluded, was something our GitHub flow intentionally was to make
easy. While that page stopped listing dates of adoption around Ballot
189, you can see previous ballot pairs (e.g. 171+164, 125+118+134+135)
that did that.
It seems worth figuring out the challenges you're facing, since it was
meant to be very easy to create a new version of the document for each
ballot, even ballots that conclude closely, and to have IP reviews as
such.
The administrative overhead of updating public web sites, sending
additional emails, and the fact that we would have versions of the
Guidelines that would be valid for a few seconds (which seems
unreasonable for a public standards document), are some of the reasons
behind aggregated final guidelines. Version 1.6.4 aggregated 3 ballots,
1.6.7 and 1.7.1. had 2 and now 1.7.2.
This process was discussed with Dean and Wayne back in February 2019,
and we all considered it compliant with our Bylaws. The results of each
IPR review period were sent to the public lists without receiving any
objections or concerns.
Although we have documented a GitHub workflow that supports the most
common case (one ballot, one IPR review, one Final Maintenance
Guideline), it should not prohibit aggregated ballots to minimize
administrative overhead or the production of Guidelines that have some
reasonable validity time.
If there are strong objections to this process, we can revise it going
forward.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:46 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2020-09-14 5:45 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
Dimitris: Could you explain why it's necessary to integrate?
It seems much better to have Ballot -> Distinct BR version, and
there's nothing in our IP policy I'm aware of that requires you
to send them as a combined review.
The result of the IPR review will produce a new version of the
Guidelines. Having two ballots with two IPR review periods would
probably require creating two versions of the Guidelines, which is
why we've been trying to combine reviews in the past, so we can
bump up one version of the Guideline.
Hope this helps.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:38 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
via Servercert-wg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I just realized that ballot SC28 also contains changes to the
BRs so I will create a combined IPR review for ballots SC35
and SC28 later today.
Thank you,
Dimitris.
On 2020-09-14 11:02 π.μ., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
*NOTICE OF REVIEW PERIOD*
**
This Review Notice is sent pursuant to Section 4.1 of the
CA/Browser Forum’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy
(v1.3).This Review Period is for two Final Maintenance
Guidelines (30 day Review Period).Attached are the complete
Draft Guidelines subject of this Review Notice.
Ballots for Review: Ballot SC35
<https://cabforum.org/2020/09/09/ballot-sc35-cleanups-and-clarifications/>
Start of Review Period: September 14, 2020 at 11:00 Eastern
Time
End of Review Period: October 14, 2020 at 11:00 Eastern Time
Please forward a written notice to exclude Essential Claims
to the Forum and Working Group Chair by email to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> and a copy to
the CA/B Forum public mailing list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> before the end of the Review
Period.
See current version of CA/Browser Forum Intellectual
Property Rights Policy for details.
/(Optional form of Exclusion Notice is available at
https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/Template-for-Exclusion-Notice.pdf)/
//
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
