[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

[Jeremy Rowley]

I still don’t see the value of bastardizing the CAB Forum questions list to do something that the Mozilla mailing list already does perfectly.  Why use a brand new process when a good one already exists?  Unless, there’s a good reason for double transparency (Mozilla plus a new mailing list) I’d like to keep the ballot as already proposed if people are willing to endorse.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Public
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

 

I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much volume on that list though.


Dean

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

 

>>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.

 

This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv is making.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

 

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> > on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Reply-To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org> >
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

 

 

 

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org> > wrote:

On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?

Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and
has to clear the spam queues daily.

 

So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring manual review?

 

I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.

 

Would that address your concern? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/f0afc233/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/f0afc233/attachment-0003.p7s>