Legacy provider

[Dr Paul Dale]

I’m not sure what more I can write.

I proposed the vote text around the time I sent the notification here: no comments.
I created the vote, early in the voting period, the clarification was sought and made.
All OMC members registered their vote and the vote closed early.

The criteria for being valid as per the bylaws <https://www.openssl.org/policies/omc-bylaws.html> was met.  As votes go, this one was quick taking two days of the two weeks.

Abstentions are frequent in votes for a number of reasons.
The reasons each person uses are not revealed and not asked for.


Pauli
-- 
Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations 
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia




> On 16 Jan 2020, at 6:07 am, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pauli,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:34:40PM +1000, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
>> The OMC vote is closed.
>> 
>> The vote text being:
>> 
>> The legacy provider should be disabled by default in 3.0
>> 
>> With the clarification that "disabled" in this context means "not loaded”.
>> 
>> The vote passed (two for, one against, four abstain)
> 
> It's good to have a decision here, but I'm kind of worried about the four
> abstains -- it's easy for me to leap to a conclusion that the individuals
> in question just didn't want to to spend the time to come to a considered
> position, even though this issue has substantial potential impact for our
> userbase.  I'm trying to not make faulty assumptions, so some greater
> clarity on the circumstances would be helpful, if possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20200116/b0d2c70e/attachment-0001.html>