<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I still don’t see the value of bastardizing the CAB Forum questions list to do something that the Mozilla mailing list already does perfectly. Why use a brand new process when a good one already exists? Unless, there’s a good reason for double transparency (Mozilla plus a new mailing list) I’d like to keep the ballot as already proposed if people are willing to endorse.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Coclin via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> Wayne Thayer <wthayer@godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>; Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much volume on that list though.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><br>Dean<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wayne Thayer via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>>; Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv is making.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Public <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Reply-To: </b>Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM<br><b>To: </b>Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org" target="_blank">gerv@mozilla.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote:<br>> What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?<br><br>Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and<br>has to clear the spam queues daily.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring manual review?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Would that address your concern? <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>