[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

[Tim Hollebeek]

There is a bit of a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing going on here, though.

 

I do think we need to do a better job of discriminating between critical, blocking issues,

and issues that can be resolved after the ballot.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:39 AM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org> > wrote:

On 05/02/18 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's
> worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to
> allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an
> IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity
> of the Forum.

Failure by whom? There have been innumerable rounds of review, and calls
for review, and pleadings for review. At what point do we stop? How
would you judge it? What would be your ballot triggers?

 

And there's also been continued changes and corrections which themselves introduce new issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/c070fe18/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/c070fe18/attachment-0003.p7s>