[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

[Ryan Sleevi]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, Wayne! Does this mean that only you can clear
messages from the Mod-queue for Dean to reply to?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Ryan – with the exception of public@, all of our lists are configured to
> hold messages from non-members for moderation. Since not all CAs who would
> be subject to this requirement are members, I think the list you’re
> proposing would require the same configuration. Access to moderate a list
> is available to any member who wants to volunteer. We get a decent amount
> of spam in the questions@ moderation queue despite having a basic spam
> filter in place.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM
> *To: *Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> *Cc: *Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
> Wayne,
>
>
>
> Could you clarify the extent of moderation?
>
>
>
> That is, you highlighted Eddy as the Admin - but that's the Bylaws Section
> 6.2. Gerv's concern seems to be about reviewing spam queues, approving
> messages, adding/removing subscribers. Is that something you (or Dean) find
> yourself using? It's not something I've seen configured on any of the CA/B
> Forum Mailman instances (namely, hold for moderation), but is something
> that Mozilla has configured for their messages. That was the context and
> substance of what I was replying to Gerv about - that is, there's a
> mailing-list-admin function (of which I believe only GoDaddy has
> administrative access to mailman), and then there's the procedural question
> (which I believe you're responding to).
>
>
>
> There's no new procedural requirements, so this is presumably only a
> question about the actual administrative function of the mail list.
>
>
>
> As to Dean's point, the fact that we don't have a spam problem on the
> questions@ list, or hold for moderation, is why I don't think it's a
> substantive concern.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> wrote:
>
> I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much
> volume on that list though.
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Wayne
> Thayer via Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List <public at cabforum.org>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
> >>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to
> date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.
>
>
>
> This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in
> particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the
> long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really
> owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I
> suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s
> being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am
> transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv
> is making.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> *From: *Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via
> Public <public at cabforum.org>
> *Reply-To: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM
> *To: *Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Cc: *CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?
>
> Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and
> has to clear the spam queues daily.
>
>
>
> So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring
> manual review?
>
>
>
> I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to
> date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.
>
>
>
> Would that address your concern?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/9861fc8c/attachment-0003.html>