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

Thu May 21 05:42:39 UTC 2020

According to https://wiki.cabforum.org/ballots, it should be FORUM-11

Dimitris.

On 2020-05-21 1:19 π.μ., Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Hollebeek
>     <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto: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
>         <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:44 PM
>         *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
>         <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; CABforum1
>         <public at cabforum.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200521/747f023f/attachment-0003.html>