Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

On 26/3/2024 10:39 π.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:


Yes and no.



I don't understand how you gave this interpretation. Your email is out 
of scope of the infrastructure SC charter 
. 
However, I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.


As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the 
infrastructure group as such,




Exactly.

but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change 
the bylaws (i.e., which public group?




Discussions for changing the Bylaws must take place at the forum-level 
public mailing list. The infrastructure SC is more oriented to technical 
tasks, not policy. It cannot answer questions about possible 
interpretations of the Bylaws. We have the Forum-level public list for that.


The last part (i.e., which public group) is not very clear to me. What 
is the concern or the question?


The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or 
general?)




If this is a question for how to interpret the Bylaws or the IPR policy, 
it needs to be asked at the Forum-level public list.



, wiki info, etc.



I am not sure I understand what you mean by "wiki info".

This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for 
the infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed) 
but some can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how 
to deal with these matters.




Since the infrastructure SC is a subset the Forum-level, a simple way to 
approach this is that if you have a list of questions, out of which some 
are in scope of the infrastructure SC and some are not, you must send 
all the questions to the Forum-level list. This will give the 
opportunity for all Members (including the infrastructure SC members) to 
discuss these questions in one mailing list.


If you are not certain whether a question is or is not in scope of the 
infrastructure SC, you can "fail-close" and send to the Forum-level list.


Does that clarify things at least about the scoping of the WGs/SCs?


Thanks,
Dimitris.


*De:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
*Enviado el:* lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
*Para:* Dean Coclin ; Inigo Barreira 
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 


*Asunto:* Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
and know the content is safe.



These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The 
Infrastructure subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.


Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg 
mailing list and continue the discussion there.



Thank you,
Dimitris.

On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:

I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and
unfortunately, not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but
it’s better to be done that way.

I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the
issues at hand.


Dean

*From:*Infrastructure 
 *On Behalf Of *Inigo
Barreira via Infrastructure
*Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 

*Subject:* [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

Hi all,

I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe
not the right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it
first to the management list) but in where we have at least a
lawyer (Ben) and an “interested party” which could be Wayne as
he´s listed in the patents even not working now for GoDaddy.

The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public
list, that an exclusion notice has been filled against ballot
SC70. And I have some questions, some regarding the procedure and
some others regarding the exclusion notice itself and what we have
in the wiki.

As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):

 1. /If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then *the results
of the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed
null and void*, and;/

/a. *A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed*, in accordance
with Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG
will make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR
Policy, and communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum,
using the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List; and/

/b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and
endorsers decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:/

 1. /The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the
Draft Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the
   

Re: [Infrastructure] Ballot SC70 results

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

On 26/3/2024 11:58 π.μ., Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure wrote:


Hi,

Due to the new situation of the ballot SC70, how should we address the 
status of the ballot in the members tool and/or the google sheet?


On the members tool, we have all these options for ballots: passed, 
failed, cancelled, voting period, discussion period, new and 
pre-ballot but there´s no status for this situation.


In the google sheet, there´s no such options but need to clarify what 
we can indicate in that cell.




In my understanding it's very easy. The ballot has passed. Nothing needs 
to change in the member's tool or the spreadsheet. These tools serve a 
different purpose, to capture the Member's votes and give the result.


The IPR clearance and publishing of the updated guideline is a separate 
process.


Another question is if all votes are automatically rescinded and 
deemed null and void, should we remove those votes from the tool and 
the sheet? Should we leave them for some historical purposes?




There is no such option in the Bylaws. The votes are not rescinded 
because of an essential claim. The Bylaws have provisions for this 
situation which has happened at least once in the past. Which part of 
the Bylaws or the IPR Policy is not clear to you for the situation we 
are currently in?


As a reminder:

 * Bylaws, IPR Policy and procedural questions/interpretations/possible
   changes of those documents must be discussed at the Forum's public
   mailing list (pub...@cabforum.org).
 * If the Forum-level decides on certain tooling updates, the
   implementation can be further analyzed/discussed at the
   infrastructure SC.
 * The specific PAG or IPR discussion must happen at the corresponding
   WG, not the Forum-level and certainly not at the infrastructure SC.


Thanks,
Dimitris.


Regards


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The 
Infrastructure subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.


Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg mailing 
list and continue the discussion there.



Thank you,
Dimitris.


On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:


I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, 
not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be 
done that way.


I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues 
at hand.



Dean

*From:*Infrastructure  *On Behalf 
Of *Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure

*Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
*Subject:* [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

Hi all,

I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not 
the right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the 
management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an 
“interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents 
even not working now for GoDaddy.


The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, 
that an exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I 
have some questions, some regarding the procedure and some others 
regarding the exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.


As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):

 1. /If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then *the results of
the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and
void*, and;/

/a. *A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed*, in accordance with 
Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will 
make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and 
communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member 
Mail List and the Public Mail List; and/


/b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and 
endorsers decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:/


 1. /The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the
Draft Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the steps
described in Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above, replacing the
“Initial Vote” with a “Second Vote.” If a Draft Guidelines
Ballot passes the Second Vote, then the results of the Second
Vote are deemed to be final and approved. Draft Guidelines
then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance
Guidelines, as designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The
Chair will notify the Public Mail List of the approval, as
well as update the public website of Final Guidelines and
Final Maintenance Guidelines; or/
 2. /The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft
Guidelines Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be
proposed, and must go through the steps described in Sections
2.3(1) through (9) above./

So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered 
null, there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I 
added this topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be 
running the call because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going 
to send an email to the SC public list indicating that the ballot is 
null (BTW, we don´t have any kind of template to make such 
communication). Is this the right interpretation of the bylaws?


OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that 
would like to share.


  * This exclusion notice contains 7 patents
  o #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name
registration to receive a secure socket layer certificate):
Created in 2004 (there were no BRs at that time), granted in
2010 and expires in 2017
  o #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted
in 2011 and expires in 2027
  o #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital
certificates via subscription): Created in 2004 (there were no
BRs at that time), granted in 2013 and expires in 2030
  o #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and
expires in 2033
  o #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status
via partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015
and expires in 2033
  o #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires
in 2031
  o #7 (Method and system for managing secure custom domains):
Created in 2017, granted in 2018 and expires in 2037. This was
initially filed and assigned to Lantirn INC and later to the
Bank of Canada. GoDaddy is not listed anywhere.
  * All 

Re: [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

On 7/3/2024 3:53 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:


Recordings are only used by the minute takers to assist in that task. 
After that they should be destroyed.


I’m currently receiving recording emails after the CSCWG and the 
regular CABF meetings




Hi Dean,

You receive *links *to those recordings. I periodically delete the 
recordings from the WebEx server. If you have local copies downloaded to 
your computer, you should delete them after the minutes are approved.


I think Paul found an option that we can enable on WebEx that protects 
the recordings from being downloaded. We can explore that path for more 
control.



Thanks,
Dimitris.




*Dean Coclin *

*From:*Infrastructure  *On Behalf 
Of *Martijn Katerbarg via Infrastructure

*Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:22 AM
*To:* infrastructure@cabforum.org
*Subject:* [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

All,

I’m pretty much ready to launch a scheduled command to automatically 
send out meeting recordings to the CABF management list after each 
teleconference. A screenshot of the template used is attached here 
(with obfuscated details).


Do we want to pass this by the Management list or Forum call prior to 
enabling?



Another question that needs answering before we enable this: currently 
recordings are not auto-removed. We discussed enabling auto-removal, 
and I believe we’ve settled on 60 days. Are we all satisfied with that?


As an alternative, the WebEx API does allow for direct download of 
recordings. So my final question here is: If we have storage 
available, would we want to download a copy of each recording for 
archival and “just in case” purposes?


Regards,

Martijn


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] RV: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto Authority

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

All,

According to the Bylaws, IPs are not allowed to attend Teleconferences 
or F2F Meetings without an invitation from the Chair. That means that 
access to the Webex information should only be given to IPs that have 
been invited to such meetings.



Thanks,
Dimitris.

PS: Inigo, I'm not sure if you noticed but you forwarded a message that 
was sent to a non-public mailing list (questi...@cabforum.org) to a 
public list with public access to its archive (infrastructure@cabforum.org).


On 26/2/2024 6:55 π.μ., Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure wrote:


All,

This is what I´ve just indicated at the F2F. And it´s in relation to 
allow Interested Parties to the wiki, because if so, then no need to 
send another invitation. They have the Webex info and then may join if 
they want, and we´re not checking if this attendee is an IP or a full 
member.


But at the end, the only difference is that they can´t vote.

Regards

*De:*Wayne Thayer 
*Enviado el:* lunes, 5 de febrero de 2024 21:29
*Para:* Inigo Barreira 
*Asunto:* Re: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto 
Authority


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
and know the content is safe.


Hi Inigo,

I've given Troy Posting rights on the servercert-wg mailing list.

I'm not clear on allowing Interested Parties to attend the 
teleconferences. The Forum Bylaws say they must be invited to Forum 
teleconferences by the Chair, but the SCWG Charter is silent on the 
matter. I believe IPs should be able to attend SCWG meetings without a 
special invitation, but since we use the same meeting for both SCWG 
and Forum, the rules aren't so clear.


If Troy should be allowed to attend the SCWG teleconferences, then 
someone will need to send the WebEx info to him because IPs do not get 
wiki access.


Thanks,

Wayne

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 3:07 AM Inigo Barreira 
 wrote:


Wayne, please, can you grant whatever access Troy may need for the
SCWG?

Regards

*De:* Inigo Barreira
*Enviado el:* lunes, 5 de febrero de 2024 12:06
*Para:* troy anderson ; questi...@cabforum.org
*Asunto:* RE: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto
Authority

Hi Troy,

In the last SCWG meeting, it was agreed to include you as an
Interested Party also for the Servercert working group.

Regards

*De:* Questions  *En nombre de
*troy anderson via Questions
*Enviado el:* jueves, 18 de enero de 2024 18:36
*Para:* questi...@cabforum.org
*Asunto:* [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto
Authority

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.

thank you for reviewing my application to become an 'Interested
Party' to the following Working Groups of the CA/Browser forum.

if you require more information, please feel free to contact me.

cheers,

Troy Anderson

=

trand...@ccauth.org

952-215-4775

a completed and signed IPR Policy Agreement:
*. attached*
an indication of the Working Group(s) to which you are applying:
*. Server Certificate WG, Code Signing Certificate WG, S/MIME
Certificate WG*
organization name:
*. Common Crypto Authority (MN Statute 317A Domestic Non-Profit)*
names and email addresses of employees who will participate on Forums:
*. Troy Anderson, trand...@ccauth.org*
an indication of which of such employees will be authorized to
vote on Forum and working group ballots:
*. requesting 'Interested Party' only, no ballot voting*
emergency contact information
*. Troy Anderson, tranders.ccauth.org

,
mobile 952-215-4775*


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Differences between Bylaws and SCWG charter

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

Inigo,

3(a) and 3(b) are referring to the SCWG Charter, not the Bylaws. BTW, 
the Bylaws were recently updated (July 2023).


Dimitris.

On 22/2/2024 6:35 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure wrote:


Hi,

Just realized, before sending the “formal” acceptance of a new member, 
and now realizing that has to go under a probationary period of 6 
months, that when the charter indicates some of the sections of the 
Bylaws, these do not exist in the bylaws as such. For example, it´s 
indicated to comply with 3(a) or 3(b), but there´s nothing with that 
number in the Bylaws.


I don´t know if this is due to the change to the new web because the 
charter is from December and the bylaws hasn´t changed for some time, 
then I´m wondering if that´s part of the migration.


Regards


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

On 21/2/2024 6:02 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:


And also needs an update, not only regarding the new chapter 
requirements, but also regarding “old” organizations. For example, I 
see in the browsers side Brave, Comodo, … and in the CAs, Network 
Solutions, Prvni, …


But don´t know how to do that update. It´s not clear on how to or when 
start applying the new charter, organizations that never/barely showed 
up, …


Or maybe do nothing.



It doesn't hurt to keep, one can check past votings if they want to :)

Once we move the functionality in the membership tool, we can stop using 
the spreadsheet. However, the spreadsheet is useful for transparency and 
allows everyone to verify the results.



Dimitris.

*De:*Infrastructure  *En nombre 
de *Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure

*Enviado el:* miércoles, 21 de febrero de 2024 16:56
*Para:* infrastructure@cabforum.org
*Asunto:* Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
and know the content is safe.


I don't think the membership management tool processes all the votes 
as the Google spreadsheet. We still need to use both:


 1. The membership tool to check for the proper voting representatives
 2. the spreadsheet to calculate the rules according to the Bylaws
(2/3, 50%+1, Quorum, etc).

Dimitris.

On 21/2/2024 5:45 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:

We use the tool in the membership management portal now to track
the votes.

*Dean Coclin *

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

*From:*Infrastructure 
<mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Inigo
Barreira via Infrastructure
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:48 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
<mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org>
*Subject:* [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

Hi all,

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the
list of CAs and Browsers is out of date.

CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google Sheets

<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1FBsMZjlzyvK3mFR1u4qMqvZwlI86yJ-v0am1pCBo8uI%2Fedit%23gid%3D1202563089=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C349ee7ef92c34c4408e308dc32f58b89%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638441277435870041%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=pP1UuZAQj0Zg1lpZce6RcF3cDlWE3aAbqYs5GaO61Jg%3D=0>

There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for
example. And I haven´t considered the latest applications so the
number can vary a bit more. I think it does not affect to the
results of the ballots due to the number of CAs voting but the way
the browser votes are counted can be an issue due to that 50%+1.

Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the
“participation” of the different members and look for suspensions.
The new charter was approved and published in December (BTW,
there´s no date on the new version 1.3 and no way to find old
version, if that´s of interest) and don´t know when this is
applicable.

Regards



___

Infrastructure mailing list

Infrastructure@cabforum.org

https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure  
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C349ee7ef92c34c4408e308dc32f58b89%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638441277435885782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=u%2BqziAhM1lhlvP38F%2BP0XTzBVs39HTThNoyT5j3vNYg%3D=0>

___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

I don't think the membership management tool processes all the votes as 
the Google spreadsheet. We still need to use both:


1. The membership tool to check for the proper voting representatives
2. the spreadsheet to calculate the rules according to the Bylaws (2/3,
   50%+1, Quorum, etc).

Dimitris.


On 21/2/2024 5:45 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:


We use the tool in the membership management portal now to track the 
votes.


*Dean Coclin *

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

*From:*Infrastructure  *On Behalf 
Of *Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure

*Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:48 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
*Subject:* [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

Hi all,

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the 
list of CAs and Browsers is out of date.


CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google Sheets 



There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for 
example. And I haven´t considered the latest applications so the 
number can vary a bit more. I think it does not affect to the results 
of the ballots due to the number of CAs voting but the way the browser 
votes are counted can be an issue due to that 50%+1.


Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the “participation” 
of the different members and look for suspensions. The new charter was 
approved and published in December (BTW, there´s no date on the new 
version 1.3 and no way to find old version, if that´s of interest) and 
don´t know when this is applicable.


Regards


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Zeus poll locked and ready

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

The poll to select the best option for the separation of the CA/B Forum 
plenary and SCWG Teleconference slots is ready.




I will send an email to the management list informing about the process. 
The trustees are me, Martijn and Wayne.


Please let me know if you have any questions.


Best regards,
Dimitris.___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] WordPress Instructions

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

Hi Ben, thank you for working on those instructions,

Except for the tags you have indicated, should we perhaps have a listing 
of the exact tags that should be used on each occasion? For example, 
when publishing minutes, there may be tasks to distinguish if the 
minutes are for a Teleconference or a Physical (F2F) Meeting.



Thanks,
Dimitris.

On 8/11/2023 11:57 μ.μ., Ben Wilson via Infrastructure wrote:
Today I started to edit the WordPress instructions for the website and 
bring them up to date. (They're quite out-of-date.) I have provided a 
link to them on the wiki - 
https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/infrastructure/page/wordpress-instructions. 
If you'd like to help me edit them and need "edit" access, then please 
let me know.

Thanks,
Ben

___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure


___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Short demo of Zeus voting system

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

Hi,

I would like to spend some time at our next call (Nov 29) to do a short 
demo of Zeus and how it will be used for the upcoming survey.


Jos, can you please add it to the agenda and let me know if there is 
time for a short presentation and demo (30' in total)?



Thanks,
Dimitris.
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure