[Servercert-wg] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Ballot SC31 - Browser Alignment

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:12 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> Your response to GlobalSign was written very elegantly but the word
> "GlobalSign" was used 15 times in your response to Doug which is indicative
> of putting a Member "on the spot".
>

Would it have been better to say "the right honorable Gentleman"? At some
point, we need to discuss views that are being presented and their merits.
Our code of conduct is, in many ways, designed to discourage attacks
against individuals, the people we deal with on an everyday basis, not the
companies they represent. If our code of conduct is to be extended to brand
protection, which is what you are suggesting and have suggested in the
past, then this is deeply misunderstanding what a Code of Conduct is for.

What is the better way to represent an individual's views and arguments?
"You" is almost certainly seen as an attack on the individual worth, and is
problematic. The abstract idea is one worth engaging in, but there still
needs to be a reference to what the framing of the argument is, and its
surrounding assumptions and logical consequences. Unless and until we have
some better way to express these abstractions, without the risk of
personally impugning the right honorable reputation of the gentleman from
GlobalSign, then to avoid the personal pronouns is to necessitate the
proper nouns.



> Threatening to leave the Forum could be seen by some Members as another
> form of intimidation.
>

I am having trouble squaring this, especially with any basis with the
behaviour and intent of our Code of Conduct.

Respectfully, this seems like an abuse by the Chair of a Code of Conduct,
especially in the context of a thread which began by suggesting that Root
Programs should do nothing outside of the Forum, followed by a suggestion
that Root Programs should do all things outside of the Forum. This is
further deeply problematic with your statement below.

The CA/Browser Forum is a voluntary group
>

Yet the very thread begins with a suggestion that it should be involuntary
(for browsers), and your invocation of the Code of Conduct is to suggest
that any rejection of that would be intimidation.


> This is the Forum's added value and how this Forum works, without
> preventing any Root Program setting its own rules and policies
> independently, outside the Forum. These are the rules we all accepted.
>

This is, frankly, a deeply troubling statement. I cannot help but suggest
it borderlines dishonest, in that the very proposal that started this
thread, and which was being discussed, was exactly such a prohibition, as
you can clearly read in
https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2020-June/001993.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20200702/6965a5e1/attachment.html>