[cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
jimmy at it.auth.gr
Fri Sep 14 07:35:32 UTC 2018
Following-up on these comments, here is a proposed red-lined version
that fixes the ETSI references.
On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Public wrote:
> I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in
> all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated for years, they
> don´t reflect the current requirements of the CABF.
> *De:* Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] en nombre de
> Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org]
> *Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
> *Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; Ryan
> Sleevi; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
> As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is probably
> not going to be possible for this particular ballot. Ben did a lot of
> work to get the current redlined document to accurately reflect what
> the Bylaws were intended to be at this point.
> In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left behind
> after I reverted the ETSI changes. I would urge a few people to take
> a close look at it and make sure there are no additional errors …
> I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a
> few people that it looks good based on analysis that is independent of
> mine and Ben’s.
> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Tim
> Hollebeek via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
> I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as
> important as the Bylaws. I’ve had the same concern as well as I look
> through Ben’s redline. After looking at it closer on the plane last
> night, I have some concerns about what appear to be some changes to
> cross-references that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
> I will also note that I have previously pointed out that according to
> the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any way,
> shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state they are ignored for the
> purposed of updating the requirements. Yet everyone seems to want to
> review the redlines, not the ballot text. As I’ve pointed out several
> times, creating an additional representation of the changes that is
> required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
> This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more vocal and
> active in finding a solution to it that works for everyone. And no, I
> don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should be used to
> produce redlines.
> Each ballot should have one and only one official representation of
> the proposed changes, and no alternative unofficial changes should be
> required. I’ve circulated several proposals, but I really don’t care
> about the details, as long as the problem is solved.
> In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot Text
> from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline
> based on that.
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
> <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
> I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this as a
> clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can you clarify that?
> By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work to even
> make sure that the formatting of the document - claiming to be a
> redline - actually matches to the last canonical version, and that the
> changes you've highlighted in red, are, well the changes to be made.
> I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because it
> requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the previous version
> and showing how it would be corrected.
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance
> Reform Ballot 206
> Purpose of Ballot
> The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot
> numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two
> years to draft.
> The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to be
> included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were accidentally
> not included.
> The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
> discussion period changes that were approved by the members but
> then accidentally overwritten.
> The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
> DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick
> Dadashov of SSC.
> --- MOTION BEGINS ---
> This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version
> 1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.
> --- MOTION ENDS ---
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
> Discussion (7 days)
> Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
> End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
> Vote for approval (7 days)
> Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
> End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot v3-with-ETSI-update.docx
Size: 57037 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Public