[cabfpub] Draft Ballot - BR corrections (revised)

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Apr 26 06:08:50 UTC 2016

On Apr 25, 2016 8:45 PM, "Peter Bowen" <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Below is a revised ballot based on ballot 167 which failed to get
quorum.  I was unable to get consensus on language around the new RFC
reference text the previous ballot had in section 7, so it has been removed.


Let me say thank you for continuing to drive this and build consensus. I
know this has been a long, and arguably unrewarding ballot, though much
needed. You've done a great job here herding the cats.

However, with that said, one thing that does sadden me some is that it
seemed you had those conversations in private in terms of seeking consensus
for Section 7 language. While I can understand the appeal of expediency in
privately reaching out, I think it does a disservice to have those
discussions offlist. While I know we at Google have certainly shared
concerns with the language suggesting "When in conflict with the RFCs, the
Requirements control," and preferred your original version which was to the
effect of "The RFCs should be followed, unless noted", I have no idea who
the objecting parties are, why they objected, nor what alternatives there
may have been.

I know that the prolonged discussion of ballots can be personally and
professionally draining, and the desire to "get something to a vote" is
great - especially on the wake of a ballot that seemed to fail for no other
reason than member apathy, judging by the lack of response and objections
to what is purely cleanup and maintenance - but I should hope that, for
future ballots, whether cleanup or enhancement, when you find there is
disagreement between parties, you bring it to the list. This allows the
public to understand the positions, members to understand the disagreement,
and hopefully consensus to be reached. The unfortunate removal of the
changes to Section 7, though vaguely explained, seem entirely unjustified,
and that is unfortunate.

In either event, I do hope this ballot will proceed, that members will vote
so that we might find quorum on an important aspect of much needed
maintenance, and that we might be able to go forward with a public
discussion on the points of Section 7 and much needed spec compliance. I
must admit, I'm somewhat shocked to be lead to believe a member would
disagree about the need to adhere to the relevant standards for
certificates, but judging by what crt.sh shows for non-compliance, perhaps
I shouldn't be.

Thanks again for your efforts thus far.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160425/c434816d/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list