> On Apr 25, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2016 8:45 PM, "Peter Bowen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Below is a revised ballot based on ballot 167 which failed to get quorum. > > I was unable to get consensus on language around the new RFC reference text > > the previous ballot had in section 7, so it has been removed. > > > > Peter, > > Let me say thank you for continuing to drive this and build consensus. I know > this has been a long, and arguably unrewarding ballot, though much needed. > You've done a great job here herding the cats. > > However, with that said, one thing that does sadden me some is that it seemed > you had those conversations in private in terms of seeking consensus for > Section 7 language. While I can understand the appeal of expediency in > privately reaching out, I think it does a disservice to have those > discussions offlist. While I know we at Google have certainly shared concerns > with the language suggesting "When in conflict with the RFCs, the > Requirements control," and preferred your original version which was to the > effect of "The RFCs should be followed, unless noted", I have no idea who the > objecting parties are, why they objected, nor what alternatives there may > have been. > > I know that the prolonged discussion of ballots can be personally and > professionally draining, and the desire to "get something to a vote" is great > - especially on the wake of a ballot that seemed to fail for no other reason > than member apathy, judging by the lack of response and objections to what is > purely cleanup and maintenance - but I should hope that, for future ballots, > whether cleanup or enhancement, when you find there is disagreement between > parties, you bring it to the list. This allows the public to understand the > positions, members to understand the disagreement, and hopefully consensus to > be reached. The unfortunate removal of the changes to Section 7, though > vaguely explained, seem entirely unjustified, and that is unfortunate.
As I said when I started to draft this ballot, anything that seemed controversial, in my opinion, would be moved to a separate ballot. This discussion on this list between yourself and Jeremy included Jeremy saying “I’m suggesting this language change is a material change and non-trivial. I’m saying the old language needs to be retained as the impact hasn’t really been evaluated yet.”. You responded to that email and included a paragraph starting "Though I strongly disagree”. From my view, this exchange clearly indicated that the section 7 changes were controversial, at least from the viewpoint of some members. Therefore I removed it from this ballot. > In either event, I do hope this ballot will proceed, that members will vote > so that we might find quorum on an important aspect of much needed > maintenance, and that we might be able to go forward with a public discussion > on the points of Section 7 and much needed spec compliance. I must admit, I'm > somewhat shocked to be lead to believe a member would disagree about the need > to adhere to the relevant standards for certificates, but judging by what > crt.sh shows for non-compliance, perhaps I shouldn't be. Once this current corrections ballot is put to bed, I can propose a brand new ballot with just the section 7 changes. This will ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to discuss the impacts of the proposed change and specification compliance. However I would ask that discussion please be separated from this ballot, as this ballot no longer should be making any changes in that area. Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
