[cabfpub] Should we cancel CABF Conference on Thursday?

[philliph at comodo.com]

No, that was the message I was responding to.

You raised the meta-issue of precedent, I was responding to the meta-issue not to 214. At the end of the day, there has to be some cut over for every CA such that they are doing processing X on one day and processing Y the next. Having the CABForum pick that day rather than each CA was not my intention but I can’t see a good way to fix it in the current rules.

What worries me more than the 214 situation is what happens next time round in a year or two when the issue is not so current.



> On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Phil,
> 
> Were you replying to the wrong message? This was about cancelling our call. There's some issues with your message, but I'm suspecting it's probably best to keep it on the thread discussing 214, rather than on cancelling our call.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Phillip via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> On the contrary, it is the situation that is a concern to me rather than the actual ballot. Mr Sleevi is correct, there are issues of precedent here. I don't think the consequences of this specific issue are something to get worked up about but I can well see us getting into circumstances where they are. That is why I was concerned to process the errata in a way that did not lead to setting a precedent.
> 
> It seems to me that as a matter of process, if the forum decides on a vote then there should be three times.
> 
> 1) The date when the ballot closes
> 2) The date at which the decision becomes final
> 3) The date at which the decision goes into effect.
> 
> At present dates #1 and #2 are the same. I don't think we want dates #2 and #3 to be the same but having #2 occur 21 days after #1 would seem to make sense.
> 
> I do not see how changing a decision that has not gone into effect is 'retrospective'. So if there was to be a fixup ballot it would have to void the previous decision and then replace it. I am happy to propose this if it is possible under the rules as they are. What does not seem to make any sense is to put in a motion that means we have a hard cut off to the new and then two weeks later a phase in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:49 AM
> To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Should we cancel CABF Conference on Thursday?
> 
> On 26/09/17 17:28, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> > Accordingly, _I propose to cancel our teleconference for this
> > Thursday, Sept. 28 – *does anyone object*_?
> 
> No objection. One possible topic of discussion might be what to do about the ballot 214 situation, but as voting ends before the call, it would be too late.
> 
> So I think we can leave all other topics until the face-to-face.
> 
> Gerv
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170928/8e111715/attachment-0003.html>