[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Oct 11 16:39:29 UTC 2017

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 11/10/17 17:25, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > Then I hope you can add to the substance of discussion by highlighting
> > what you believe is 'unfunded', as it were.
> You really don't have to write long complex emails about this. It's
> really very simple.

It really isn't, because it's unclear your objection - and still is.

> Get someone (you, the person who deals with the
> questions list, any other member) to say "yes, I'll look after this new
> list" and my objection evaporates.

What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?

> If it's not hard to get someone to do this work, all you have to do is
> get them to pipe up in this thread. If it's the person who looks after
> questions@, fine.

We have a designated responder for questions at . There's no such proposal
here. So it's unclear what the comparison is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/81603475/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list