Skip to main content

Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy
charter-ietf-openpgp-04

Yes

Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw
(Benjamin Kaduk)

No Objection

Murray Kucherawy
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Erik Kline
Yes
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2020-11-05 for -02-02) Sent
While I support the creation of the WG, I have some comments on the charter:

1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the history ?

2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the charter is dated 2015... ;-)

3) is the word 'entertain' the right one in "OpenPGP may be entertained by the working group" ? For a non-English speaker, the word 'entertain' is about getting fun but there seems to be other meaning

4) in"the working group will accept no I-D" s/accept/adopt/ ?

5) I do not know about the context, but the last paragraph looks to me like requesting a WGLC before adoption. Also, it requires two reviews but what will happen if those two reviews are negative ?
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02-02) Not sent

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-02) Not sent

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-01) Not sent

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-01) Not sent

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-02) Not sent

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-02) Not sent

                            
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-02) Not sent

                            
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2020-11-05 for -02-02) Sent
> Furthermore, the working group will accept no I-D's as working group 
> items unless there is a review by at least two un-interested parties of 
> the I-D as part of the acceptance process.

Does this mean that the working group won't adopt any IDs as working group items unless it has been reviewed by two un-interested parties?  If so, perhaps change accept/acceptance to adopt/adoption?