[cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/01/14 00:37, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> 2) Section 2.1 ("authenticate digitally signed code") is still a much
> greater increase of scope of the work of the members. I'd prefer if we
> could leave that for broader discussion. While I'm aware of the "Code
> Signing WG" discussions, this change in definitions has the effective
> quality of allowing/encouraging vendors with no/limited stake in the
> SSL/TLS ecosystem to vote on changes to the BRs / EVGs, and vice versa.
> I'm sure you can recognize at it's face, that has some degree of
> undesirability, and effectively changes the "CA/Browser Forum" to the
> "CA/ISV Forum"

But they still have to actually manage a root store, don't they? Can you
give an example of a company who would be admissible under the new rules
who you think is not interested in the SSL/TLS ecosystem?

Gerv