[cabfpub] Ballot 183 was approved

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Feb 10 06:50:38 UTC 2017


As the name implies, it would be geared towards the more technical
participants, to simplify workflow for the non-technical participants.

For example, what in your mind is the current process that someone who
wants to "create a new version of the document" and "amend documents to the
website", and how long do you believe that currently takes? Similarly, if
everyone is pitching in, rather than currently relying on a "Trusted Third
Party" (... Ben), how do you propose we make sure mistakes aren't made
along the way?

The answers for both those questions are reasonably complex, at present -
even for the technically savvy (at least at first). It involves either
proprietary software (Office + Acrobat, if going the ".doc file is the
master"), with no transparency ("How do I make sure I have the current
version of the doc) - as some drafts work - or it requires installing a
variety of free-and-open-source software on a POSIX machine (the GitHub
approach)

The hackathon would seek to implement what we've discussed at the past
several F2F, but haven't materialized in the interim - things like guidance
on how to reflect drafts in GitHub, integration such that GitHub
automatically produces PDFs, and working to resolve any concerns or issues
that prevent that automation.

One thing we've heard reiterated time and time again - from Baden, to
Scottsdale, to Seattle - is that "Ben as a Service" isn't a system that
scales. I appreciate you calling attention to the fact that all members can
help out - but I'm suggesting your proposal, at present, is impractical and
unworkable. A hackathon among the technically minded folks would seek to
simplify that as much as possible (automation), and collaboratively develop
documentation and guidance so that it can hopefully be easily understood
and followed by the non-technically minded folks. Such an outcome would,
hopefully, allow Ben a bit more freedom to rest and relax :)

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> I don’t fully understand – what would the “hackathon” produce?
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2017 8:30 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 183 was approved
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
>
>
> I wholly support the ability to move the Forum to a mode where load is not
> disproportionately placed on a few members' time, but it does seem to me
> that it's not as simple as you propose.
>
>
>
> For example, in past activities of the Forum, it involved
>
> 1) Having a copy of the correct version of Microsoft Office as what the
> 'true' document used
>
> 2) Having a copy of Adobe Acrobat (and not some "print to PDF product") to
> appropriate generate
>
>
>
> However, the Forum has previously accepted that "the GitHub versions are
> the masters", vis-a-vis https://github.com/cabforum/documents/tree/
> master/docs
>
>
>
> While this easily allows submitting "Pull Requests" to the Bylaws, and it
> thankfully has an automated script to produce the PDF version, that doesn't
> include the ability to seamlessly edit the website. Plus, we should strive
> to ensure that the updates to the Website truly reflect what's in the
> documents and intent.
>
>
>
> Since it sounds like you're wholly on board with democraticizing the
> maintenance, a view I and others have supported, perhaps some members might
> be interested in a 'hackathon' on the Monday prior to our next F2F. We
> could use such a hackathon among the more technically minded members to
> improve the tooling and automation so that any changes to the documents
> will necessarily result in a PDF being produced that's ready. We could also
> work through to arrange documentation for best practices, so that perhaps
> there may be an opportunity that during the F2F, we can report back with
> simple guidance and training on that process.
>
>
>
> I would be curious if that's something that some members might be
> interested in - again, on the Monday, March 20. If we can get some rough
> interest, we can then go about securing a venue for that activity.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Ben, that’s nice of you.  Actually, in the past all members, not just the
> Chair and Vice Chair, have pitched in and volunteered their help on
> administrative tasks like amending documents on the website, so in the
> future whoever wants to take first crack on creating a new version of a
> document – your assistance will be appreciated by all.
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Wilson via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2017 1:00 PM
> *To:* public at cabforum.org
> *Cc:* Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 183 was approved
>
>
>
> My apologies, I think Kirk asked me to prepare an updated version.  I’ll
> post one today.
>
>
>
> *Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP*
>
> VP Compliance
>
> +1 801 701 9678 <(801)%20701-9678>
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2017 1:57 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 183 was approved
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Ballot 183 was *approved* by a vote of 17 yes (100%), 0 no, 0 abstain by
> CAs, and 2 yes (100%), 0 no, 0 abstain by browsers.  The quorum figure was
> 8 votes total, so quorum was achieved.
>
>
>
> *CA yes votes*: Amazon, ANF Autoridad de Certificacion, Buypass AS,
> Chunghwa Telecom, Cisco, Comodo, DigiCert, Disig a.s., Entrust Datacard,
> GlobalSign, GoDaddy, HARICA, Izenpe S.A., SwissSign AG, Symantec,
> Trustwave, and TurkTrust,
>
>
>
> *Browser yes votes*: Apple, Mozilla
>
>
>
> We will soon publish and updated version of the Bylaws reflecting the
> changes from Ballot 183.  Members can begin filing new Ballots in
> compliance with these new procedures – we will need to modify the verbiage
> at the end of a ballot as a result.  If you have a ballot that is ready,
> please consult with Ben, Peter, or me as to the verbiage to add at the end
> of the ballot.
>
>
>
> Good to have this done!  Thanks to all.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
>
>
> It's been nine days since this Ballot was approved, but a new version of
> the Bylaws has not yet been published at https://cabforum.org/bylaws/
>
>
>
> Can you indicate when you expect to do so?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170209/517e1a8e/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170209/517e1a8e/attachment-0003.jpg>


More information about the Public mailing list