[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Oct 11 16:25:29 UTC 2017

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 11/10/17 15:42, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > The questions@ list doesn't suffer any of these problems. What makes you
> > believe this is a reasonable conclusion to reach for a new list?
> Just saying, if you are offering to moderate, my objection goes away :-)

That's not a substantive reply. Can you indicate why you believe that the
approach used for the questions@ list is unsuitable?

> > Your further reply again suggests there's some new set of requirements
> > you feel are necessary and critical - that is, "if you can find someone
> > to run it" - when the Forum itself has shown quite capable of running
> > the questions@ list for such a purpose.
> "The Forum" doesn't run anything. Individual people run things.

I feel this is harping on an individual detail without adding to the
substance of the discussion, which is somewhat surprising. For example, our
Bylaws (Section 5.1) clearly establish that "The Forum" shall maintain a
variety of things, such as mail lists and websites. I hope you can see this
is perfectly with precedent, and no more substantial than our creation of
WG mailing lists.

> > I do hope you can recognize the inherent value in having such a
> > vendor-neutral list, one which can allow the discovery of trends and
> > patterns of issues in which the BRs may be either overly restrictive or
> > insufficiently clear, in a way that the Forum itself can resolve those
> > matters, rather than suggesting they must be 'laundered' to the Forum by
> > some browser.
> Like I said, I won't vote against it unless you are doing the equivalent
> of providing an unfunded mandate.

Then I hope you can add to the substance of discussion by highlighting what
you believe is 'unfunded', as it were. This is fully with the precedent of
the Forum, and thus seems a rather trivial - and thus suprising -
objection. It's unclear if those objections are concerns about the
technical nature - in which case, I want to try to understand them to see
if and how they can be addressed, if it's one of a procedural nature - in
which case, I want to understand so I can refer you to the Bylaws or the
precedent, or some other, as yet understood concern, in which case, I'd
love to understand how to best address your concerns.

It feels as if the substance is an objection simply because Mozilla plans
to require this anyways - but the value in having an objective,
quantifiable, auditable procedure would still hopefully be valuable for
Mozilla to recognize, much within the spirit of its Mission. It's unclear
what you anticipate the overall harm, and it's also unclear if you disagree
with the good it can cause, or if I haven't sufficiently explained to you
the value it provides over a Mozilla-dictated process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/7bbf1cd6/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list