[Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly Formatting)

Mon Mar 2 08:32:28 MST 2020

Yep, waiting until SC25 and SC27 complete their review periods seems like
the best approach. We might also want to ask members to hold off on any
other ballots so we can get SC26 completed.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:02 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Our Bylaws ( Section 2.4(10) ) require that you basically provide versions
> for every scenario if they're modifying the same section:
> 1) SC25 is excluded during IP review, SC27 is included
> 2) SC25 is included, SC27 is excluded during IP review
> 3) SC25 is excluded during IP review, SC27 is excluded during IP review
> 4) SC25 is included, SC27 is included
>
> You're absolutely correct that the 'simple' answer is to wait until those
> ballots are finalized and start the discussion then.
>
> *Other* ballots would have to consider both "with" and "without" SC26, if
> and only if they affect the same section as a section affected by SC26.
> That's far, far more manageable. And it's why I've been holding off on
> ballots, since you're close here.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:34 AM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That’s a good question. I could include “here’s what we’d vote on if SC25
>> and SC27 are included”, but then we also need to include “here’s 25 but not
>> 27” and “here’s 27 but not 25”. Also, it occurred to me we could time the
>> discussion period to coincide with the end of the review periods for them,
>> but really it would have to *restart* after those review periods finish.
>> This is one of the problems with a large ballot like this: it kind of has
>> to hold up everything in order to go through, because it isn’t atomic to a
>> single section of the bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> What would be the best approach?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 <(919)%20991-9114> (desk)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 10:16 AM
>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>> *Cc: *"infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Reviving SC26 (Pandoc-Friendly
>> Formatting)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jos - how will we handle the changes in ballots SC25 and SC27 that are
>> not included in this ballot (they're still in the review period)?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’d like to revive SC26 ASAP so we can finally pull it over the line.
>> I’ve made what I think are the correct changes to the ballot below (and the
>> attachments) to make it (a) up to date, and (b) conformant with what we
>> discussed at the F2F in Bratislava. *However,* I’m well aware that I may
>> have misremembered something from that week, so if this doesn’t look right
>> or needs tweaking, please let me know. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 <(919)%20991-9114> (desk)
>>
>>
>>
>> The following is the ballot to update the BRs with formatting changes to
>> make them Pandoc-friendly for changing our automation methods. I’m just
>> looking for two endorsers at this point; I’ll add the timeline once we
>> formally open the ballot.
>>
>>
>>
>> *BALLOT SC26: Pandoc-Friendly Markdown Formatting Changes*
>>
>>
>>
>> The following ballot is proposed by Jos Purvis of Cisco Systems and has
>> been endorsed by XXX and YYY.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Purpose:* This ballot modifies the formatting of the Baseline
>> Requirements in order to make the presentation of content consistent and
>> aligned with “vanilla” Markdown. This will permit the use of pandoc as a
>> format-translation tool to automatically produce a PDF, DOCX, and HTML
>> version of the Baseline Requirements document with each update and allow
>> the Forum to use the Markdown-formatted version as the canonical version of
>> the Baseline Requirements. This ballot does NOT declare any version
>> canonical: it merely paves the way to the possibility of doing so in the
>> future by making the document formatting cleaner. In addition, the ballot
>> is not intended to change the meaning of the Baseline Requirements at
>> all—much effort has been spent in ensuring the meaning and wording of the
>> Requirements has not changed in reformatting the presentation elements.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Changes:* The changes involved in the ballot are small formatting
>> changes but large in number. As a result, rather than listing the changes
>> individually, members are requested to review the redline of the ballot to
>> see the differences. The pull request containing the set of changes to be
>> implemented can be seen here:
>>
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/SC26-pandoc-friendly
>>
>> More specifically, the set of changes to the Baseline Requirements
>> document being proposed in this ballot is shown in this commit:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/a79e22a6ff828f184797fc19ad6dcc404f80f7c1
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to the above changes, some template files are being added to
>> Github that will assist in formatting but not change any BR content
>> (commits 5386bf0 and 810196a). A copy of the resulting formatting changes
>> in each document format can be seen in the attached documents (ref.
>> BR-26.pdf, BR-26.html, BR-26.docx). These changed versions can be compared
>> to the current versions of the document found at
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 <(919)%20991-9114> (desk)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200302/3f607bd8/attachment-0001.html>