<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/1/2024 8:40 μ.μ., Tim Hollebeek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN7PR14MB6492F28C49DA095F292374C4837B2@SN7PR14MB6492.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@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;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I would
recommend reviewing the previous discussions from many years
ago, where we came to the IMO correct conclusion that
providing this information is useful in cases where it is
helpful, but requiring it in all cases is neither necessary
nor desirable. It would be a significant burden on ballot
proposers, and it adds an additional mandated
synchronization and update every time one or the other
ballot gets updated. This would be required even when the
changes are trivial and do not overlap or interfere with
each other, because that’s how compliance </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think adding those provisions is trivial enough, but I agree it is
an additional burden, yet not significant IMO. The proposer would
just need to add the language of the section taking into account the
existing ballot being passed or not.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN7PR14MB6492F28C49DA095F292374C4837B2@SN7PR14MB6492.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">mandates
work: they enforce a cost even when that cost is not
necessary. That’s why the solution to a problem isn’t
always a new compliance rule (though that fact may come as a
shock to some compliance people I know …).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Discretion
is good. People should use it responsibly. Provide
guidance where necessary, but don’t require it. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Can't argue with that :) However, it might make sense to invoke some
discussion on the lists about whether the conflict is at a level
that requires explicit provisions in the second ballot or not. I'm
thinking about the conflict between ballot SC-65 (conversion of EVG
into RFC 3647) and the ballot to fix some of the existing EVG
language. How should we handle such a case? Is the outcome of both
ballots clear enough that we don't need any provisions in the second
ballot?<br>
<br>
Any other opinions?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN7PR14MB6492F28C49DA095F292374C4837B2@SN7PR14MB6492.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Public <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"><public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 24, 2024 4:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> CABforum1 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"><public@cabforum.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Conflicting sections updated
by two or more ballots at the same time<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Members,<br>
<br>
Following-up on an issue that came up during the <a
href="https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2024-January/004133.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">discussion</a> of a ballot in the
server certificate WG, I created <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/forum/issues/42"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cabforum/forum/issues/42</a>
and hope to discuss at the next F2F, but we could start
earlier using the mailing list.<br>
<br>
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 <b>require </b>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.<br>
<br>
Do others see this as a risk that needs to be addressed
firmly in the Bylaws, changing the "may" into a "shall"? <br>
<br>
In practice, the proposer of a subsequent ballot would need
to include two versions of the language of the conflicting
section:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol type="1" start="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"> the
language of the section if both ballots A+B pass<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">the
language of the section of ballot A fails and ballot B
passes<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p>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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Happy to hear other opinions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Dimitris.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>