The hold on PR 12089

Nicola Tuveri nic.tuv at
Wed Jun 10 08:55:36 UTC 2020

I believe the OMC is called into action as some name changes might be seen
as breaking API or ABI compatibility and that has been considered so far as
part of the first item in the OMC prerogatives list.

The matter of OMC Vs OTC vote also depends on what kind of hold Tim is
applying with his - 1: is it a OMC or a OTC hold?
Of course OMC can always override what OTC decides, but the discussion/vote
should happen in OTC/OMC depending on which hat Tim was wearing when
placing the hold.



On Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 10:43 Salz, Rich <rsalz at> wrote:

> What is the timetable for resolving
> ?
> The Beta is planned for a July 16 release.  There is a massive RAND/DRBG
> PR (, the provider-friendly
> random) that is in the pipeline, and 12089 and 11682 will undoubtedly cause
> merge issues whichever gets merged first. That means extra time will be
> needed to reconcile. An OMC vote, once started, can be resolved in as
> quickly as 24 hours, but often take one or two weeks if most people
> abstain.
> Being conservative, then, the OMC needs to discuss and vote, before the
> end of this month.
> An additional complication is around the question of who votes: the OMC or
> the OTC. It is hard to justify this as requiring OMC action, unless the
> project is committing to avoiding such language in the future as a policy.
> But if the project wants to decide that, it can do so. Regardless of the
> policy, PR 12089 could be seen as purely an OTC issue, and OMC involvement
> is over-reach – what in
> justifies OMC involvement?. Nothing changes but some names; is the naming
> of things within OMC perview? I would love to know what OTC members think.
> So, what is the timetable, and what is the plan?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openssl-project mailing list