cacert-policy - Re: SP => POLICY?

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: SP => POLICY?

From: Faramir <faramir.cl AT gmail.com>
To: cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
Subject: Re: SP => POLICY?
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:51:28 -0300
Authentication-results: lists.cacert.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i= AT gmail.com; dkim-asp=none
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=mYhcdV1iLcxzBaP9k9YPmAx/A7917dnm+5EzZkHKnCIfFnTs9mexkH1+NDwT71iC+F bJKpP35wqD4Q8Kzy/LXaniMrAFslPECgZ8If2eDtFi+vNSi9ZL9CrAAZdZtTe0lFMvxQ RWFOPZZ5t9T6msgHfA/m5FlRcsJ6Zno/bX93o=
Openpgp: id=4319410E; url=http://tinyurl.com/0x4319410E

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

> 1.  Keep SP in DRAFT for another period, and
>      re-work those BLUE sections.

   I vote #1, we must be really sure approving SP won't shot our own
foot (ie, are we ready for this or we will have to stop some
functions?). I doesn't need to be a whole extra year, but we must be
sure about this.

  Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJLrZzgAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAFewH/2teVduoOtC/Q907KSAYJDnE
zbo8+95ZH2IAD5wugFUjqEkcDiCiabDbpyNaiLTJBjzGdxJu4jeXjrjqra3mxfbR
AX47F2EmSih+lObcSakvodFvfXO66AK9irgGWBuLdb+1LtmFkSazbeO2vBfvsUbv
06sF0vETVqnn3JzR1JRQvRMVLvKfSALRvTcie2B30cGlv1EY+sAK65tNbvIJ6K3U
MA8Bw9BPsggRff/TuHJ22/31p7ijppqZ80oShbRcevIbdXxmjWUui0TvRkrQemYv
D1izrPvKnDckIzZFQ37GhWnndpwkMBuByFv1DEar8lyHL+b2d/2kELfgRpBq+ag=
=j5zV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: SP => POLICY?, (continued)
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/26/2010
- RE: SP => POLICY?, ulrich, 03/26/2010
  - Re: SP => POLICY?, Faramir, 03/27/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Michael Tänzer, 03/27/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Nathan Edward Tuggy, 03/27/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Lambert Hofstra, 03/27/2010

List archive

Re: SP => POLICY?