On 17/11/2016 12:19, Gervase Markham wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
On 15/11/16 00:51, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the
versioning problems between the English documents and the original
documents.
Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root
inclusion request?
As I understand it, what happened was as follows:
* As part of their application, GDCA provided both Chinese and English
versions of their CP/CPS, posted to m.d.s.policy on 3rd August:
Chinese CP: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp
Chinese CPS: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps
English CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346
English CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749
(I don't immediately have URLs for their EV CP and CPS in Chinese or
English from the original submission.)
* On 26th September, it was pointed out by Andrew Whalley that the
English versions had lower version numbers than the Chinese versions
(CP: 1.2 vs. 1.4; CPS: 4.1 vs 4.3)
* On 27th September, one day later, GDCA provided new English versions
with the same version numbers as the Chinese versions:
CP V1.4: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795090
CPS V4.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091
EV CP V1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795093
EV CPS V1.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795094
* It was pointed out by more than one person that there were significant
content differences between the English and Chinese versions which were
both labelled with the same version number
* GDCA said this was due to a "poor CP/CPS English translation" and on
28th October, provided new English versions (again) with the same
version numbers
CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543
CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545
EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546
EV CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547
What Mozilla has to decide is whether this was incompetence or malice.
Were GDCA trying to hide something? If so, their inclusion must be in
doubt. If they were not trying to hide something and just need a lesson
in version control, that is not necessarily something which
disqualifies, although it does give one concern.
I believe their overall excuses can be rephrased as:
1. The previous Mozilla policy guidance only requiring a partial
translation. Mozilla has since fixed that, though I can't find
the posting that mentioned that document fix.
2. Sloppy translation work, including sloppyness when trying to quickly
update the 4.1 translation to match the 4.3 Chinese documents.
3. At the time, the English translations were not version controlled,
only the Chinese versions. They have promised to change this for the
next version, where they will even request an outside audit of the
translation.
4. That consistent pair of a new CP/CPS in Chinese and English has not
been posted yet, indicating that Mozilla will just have to put the
inclusion request on hold until then.
Enjoy
Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
