[cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group

[Ryan Sleevi]

Oh, and the ballot number will need to be updated - I'm not sure how both
collided on 'FORUM-12' (Dimitris' Bylaws ballot and this)

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:18 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m willing to drop the scope statement based on Thursday’s discussion
>> and the addition of the paragraph I suggested to the introduction, which
>> describes much of the same thing in a form that seems more acceptable to
>> most.  Clint and Wayne, are you ok with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> On the subject of redlines, //github_redline_guide is not normative, so I
>> disagree that it is not a valid Ballot.  But that’s not really important,
>> because I’m more than happy to improve the ballot by fixing the link.
>>
>
> While I realize we end up frequently discussing this, I think you may have
> missed that this was a different scenario than you may have realized.
>
> If your ballot had included the full text, then I agree, the redline link
> was not normative. However, your ballot just pointed to a link, and so that
> made the link itself normative. The contents of the link were not actually
> a charter, they were just a few edits. That's why it wasn't really a
> "Ballot".
>
> This is easily fixed in the next run. You can paste the full text, as I
> think you're one of the folks who still prefers to do so, despite the
> risks, or you could provide the full link to all the edits, which will at
> least include a "full charter". Just a single commit on its own, or "as of
> this revision", can end up being ambiguous :) In the future, the
> infrastructure WG efforts will certainly make this easier, and it's not
> difficult to imagine an easy "create a ballot for me" that provides the
> PDF, docx, and patch file and stable link, so appreciate your patience :)
>
>
>> Assuming Clint and Wayne sign off, please merge the change, and I’ll
>> update the ballot.
>>
>
> One more set of issues, now that scope has been finalized, that came up on
> another review cycle:
> https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/22/files
>
>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
>> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CABforum1 <
>> public at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-12: Creation of S/MIME
>> Certificates Working Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
>> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot in accordance with section 5.3
>> of the Bylaws, the S/MIME Certificates Working Group (“SMWG”) is created to
>> perform the activities as specified in the Charter, with the Charter as
>> described here (
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167/commits/2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear: This link doesn't match the link for a valid proposal,
>> so I don't think this is a valid Ballot yet.
>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide is helpful, but any
>> suggestions for improvements are welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> The immutable link is
>> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/6e0b8e61590164eb2d686ddcf266b189f46fc636...2aa376c06b45146249d0cc6b8cc5d42d08ccb177
>>
>>
>>
>> The pull request is still https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/167
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, our concern is that the statement that "non-publicly trusted
>> S/MIME certificates are out of scope" accomplishes nothing valuable, and
>> causes real harm. That is, either it fails to keep anything out of scope
>> due to its definition, OR limits the discussion to being impossible to
>> introduce any new requirements due to, by definition, anything not in the
>> existing documents is out of scope. Neither of these scenarios are good,
>> and the risk of harm outweighs any benefits. We remain committed to trying
>> to work with you and understand your goals, to find language that better
>> captures those goals without the problematic ambiguity and harm of what's
>> being proposed.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200520/c3b79977/attachment-0003.html>