[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

[Jeremy Rowley]

Why is it wrong? That's what I don't get. Aren't all documents we create 
intended for the use of particular companies and programs?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:18 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>; Dean Coclin 
<Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

More later perhaps but:

On 06/05/16 21:10, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> Neither of these changes should have any effect on what people want to
> put in the document or use it for. Or, for that matter, whether they
> can talk about it in Bilbao.
> [JR] Doesn't it? Seems like that's exactly the intent.

I thought I was very clear: I have no objection (subject to the permission of 
the person who rents the room, which I'm sure you'd get) for the same people 
to meet to discuss the same things at the same time they would have met 
otherwise, and I have no views on what they can talk about or what documents 
they can edit. I might even be there myself. My proposals have bent over 
backwards to avoid inconveniencing anyone by this formal change of status.

But I think it's wrong for work to continue _under_the_CAB_Forum_banner_ on a 
document _which_retains_a_CAB_Forum_label_ but which has no prospect of 
becoming an official work product of the Forum, and which is instead being 
edited for the use of particular companies and programs which are not the 
Forum's responsibility.

Gerv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160506/1900bf2e/attachment-0001.p7s>