[OTC VOTE PROPOSAL] Don't merge PR#14759 (blinding=yes and similar properties)

[Dr Paul Dale]

We don't need a vote on the PR.
If we make the policy vote, it would be against policy to include it.

Pauli

On 9/4/21 9:24 pm, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> I agree with what Tomàš said, and that is the reason why I convoluted 
> them in a single vote: we need to merge or reject the PR based on a 
> policy, but if we do 2 separate votes we risk to create delays in the 
> already quite loaded development cycles left!
>
> Nicola
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 10:53 Tomas Mraz <tomas at openssl.org 
> <mailto:tomas at openssl.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 08:44 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>     >
>     > On 08/04/2021 18:02, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
>     > > Proposed vote text
>     > > ==================
>     > >
>     > >      Do not merge PR#14759, prevent declaring properties
>     similar to
>     > >      `blinding=yes` or `consttime=yes` in our implementations and
>     > >      discourage 3rd parties from adopting similar designs.
>     >
>     > I think this vote tries to cover too much ground in a single
>     vote. I
>     > would prefer to see a simple vote of "Do not merge PR#14759"
>     > *possibly*
>     > followed up by separate votes on what our own policies should be
>     for
>     > provider implementations, and what we should or should not encourage
>     > 3rd
>     > parties to do.
>
>     I disagree partially. IMO we should primarily have a policy vote and
>     the closing or merging of PR#14759 should come out of it naturally.
>
>     -- 
>     Tomáš Mráz
>     No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
>                                                   Turkish proverb
>     [You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your
>     conscience.]
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20210409/7ac2ddd4/attachment-0001.html>