[cabfpub] Auditability of EV 1.4 and other CABF Guidelines

[Gervase Markham]

On 09/11/12 23:12, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Thanks, Don.  I’m just thinking out loud here, but what if we were to
> start working toward a two-session model for ballots and effective
> dates?

I wonder whether that would slow down our already not-stellar pace of 
improvements.

How about if we instead instituted a proper revision-numbering scheme, 
with major, minor and patchlevel numbering? In that world, why does 
changing the EV Guidelines and the BRs cause a problem for WebTrust and 
ETSI? We could coordinate with them over where a good point for them to 
"freeze" was, and then they would go into a round of updates saying "We 
want to make our audit standards match EV 1.4.54 and BR 1.1.17". This 
would take as long as it takes, and once it was completed, when they 
felt the need, they could do a new round to make them match EV 1.5.2 and 
BR 1.3.27. And so on.

Gerv