Dear Members,
Following-up on an issue that came up during the discussion
<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2024-January/004133.html>
of a ballot in the server certificate WG, I created
https://github.com/cabforum/forum/issues/42 and hope to discuss at the
next F2F, but we could start earlier using the mailing list.
IMO every code management system MUST have a process to address
"conflicts" that may be caused when two independent processes try to
update the same part of a document. The current language in the Bylaws
do not *require *the proposer to describe what the outcome of the ballot
should be if a previous ballot passes or fails. It leaves this at the
discretion of the proposer of the subsequent ballot.
Do others see this as a risk that needs to be addressed firmly in the
Bylaws, changing the "may" into a "shall"?
In practice, the proposer of a subsequent ballot would need to include
two versions of the language of the conflicting section:
1. the language of the section if both ballots A+B pass
2. the language of the section of ballot A fails and ballot B passes
It doesn't seem too much of a burden to me and the benefits are obvious
(removal of the risk of creating an unstable end state of the
conflicting section).
Happy to hear other opinions.
Dimitris.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
