OTC VOTE: Accept PR#16725

[Matt Caswell]

On 19/10/2021 19:31, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> I believe Matt will find the time at some point to post the minutes
> from today's meeting, but until then here is my recap.

We decided in the meeting that posting the minutes to the list wasn't 
necessary and we would just push them to the repo:

https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=otc.git;a=blob;f=meeting-minutes/minutes-2021-10-19.txt;h=8bae2b86ecd7c4f967ba2aa822535dc0facbbfa9;hb=HEAD

Matt

> 
> The discussion mostly focused on why the changes in #16725 are a
> bugfix and not a new feature, which would be a prerequisite to be
> admissible to be merged in the 3.0 branch.
> As I recall it, there were no objections to the final outcome of the
> PR to be desirable, the vote is entirely about this being a bugfix or
> not.
> 
> It would be on those who voted +1 to properly argument why this is a
> bugfix and not a new feature, but the short version of that argument
> is that the outcome of #16725 was the "intended behavior" for 3.0.0.
> The counterargument is that we could not find written evidence (i.e.,
> GH issues/PRs, documentation, and/or tests) that indeed the project
> ever committed to have this behavior in 3.0.0.
> 
> 
> The Strategic Architecture document has some text that could be
> somewhat related and used to support the "intend behavior" view, but
> the document clearly states
> 
>> This document outlines the OpenSSL strategic architecture. It will take multiple releases, starting from 3.0.0, to move the architecture from the current "as-is" (1.1.1), to the future "to-be" architecture.
> 
> Hence, it does not really prove that this functionality was always
> planned for the 3.0.0 release.
> 
> Accepting this PR for the next minor release would not require a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this recap is helpful to inform your decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nicola
> 
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:10 PM Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>> topic: Accept PR#16725 as a bug fix for backport into 3.0 subject to the
>>> normal review process
>>
>> So we have various people voting -1. Does someone want to explain
>> why they vote -1?
>>
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>