[cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Fri Feb 10 18:03:52 UTC 2017

We’ve always allowed minor changes in ballots after being proposed and this would fall into that category.

However, I strongly believe time spent gathering consensus would be of value. I disagree that the forum is not a consensus driven organization. Sure there have been disagreements on some issues in the past but for the most part, ballots pass with a large percentage voting yes. Consensus has been a goal since the first meeting in NYC. It seems there is an ulterior motive at play in rushing this to a vote.

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:42 PM
To: Eric Mill <eric at konklone.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Eric Mill <eric at konklone.com<mailto:eric at konklone.com>> wrote:
I really think it would be worth picking 400 days and moving on, as there are other more significant aspects of the proposal that would benefit from arriving at consensus or something close to it, and energy spent on 398 v 400 is energy not spent on addressing those issues.

I appreciate the sentiment, but so far, the only one suggesting there's a lack of consensus has been a non-voting member. That is, the choice of 398 versus 400 does not affect consensus at all, at least, based on the messages so far.

Given that the Forum doesn't have a clear process for making changes to a Ballot during the discussion phase - other than there must be at least 7 days discussion of a Ballot - presumably that change would do more harm than good, by delaying a vote which is otherwise unaffected by the choice.

So let's agree to 398 days and no longer discuss, unless some CA believes that the choice of those two days would materially affect their vote, and thereby, affect consensus :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170210/2edc69f5/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list