1 # A record of formal votes in reverse chronological order.
3 # To vote, add one of the following entries next to your name:
5 # [+1] I vote in favour of the proposal
6 # [ 0] I abstain from the vote
7 # [-1] I vote against the proposal
9 # If you are abstaining, you can indicate a tendency as follows:
11 # [+0] I abstain but with a slight lean towards a vote in favour
12 # [ 0] I abstain with no stated preference
13 # [-0] I abstain but with a slight lean towards a vote against
15 # A template for voting (alphabetical by surname) follows.
23 accepted: yes/no (for: X, against: Y, abstained: Z, not voted: T)
38 topic: The performance improvements provided in PR11188 should be considered a
39 bug fix and therefore acceptable for backport to 1.1.1
40 Proposed by Matt Caswell
44 accepted: yes/no (for: X, against: Y, abstained: Z, not voted: T)
60 topic: Rename OSSL_SERIALIZER / OSSL_DESERIALIZER to OSSL_ENCODER / OSSL_DECODER
62 The rationale is that it makes things easier on programmers
63 (encode / decode is easier to write than serialize / deserialize),
64 and also avoids disputes on what is and isn't serialization.
66 Associated issues and PRs: #12455, #12659 and #12660
71 accepted: yes (for: 5, against: 1, abstained: 4, not voted: 1)
79 Shane [-0] # Shane's vote was actually --0
86 topic: Rename OPENSSL_CTX to OSSL_LIB_CTX (as proposed by pull request #12621)
88 The main rationale behind this change is consistency, because many of the new
89 OpenSSL 3.0 types have an OSSL_ prefix, and OPENSSL_CTX is a notable exception.
90 More details can be found in the description and thread of pull request #12621.
92 There was a discussion on openssl-committers ('Rename OPENSSL_CTX to OSSL_WHAT?')
93 and an initial poll on doodle about the favourite replacements for OPENSSL_CTX
94 (https://doodle.com/poll/drku9ziwvkp6tw25).
96 Proposed by Matthias St. Pierre
100 accepted: yes (for: 5, against: 0, abstained: 4, not voted: 2)
115 topic: For change requests which target both the master and the
116 OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch, the following procedure should be followed:
117 - First, a pull request needs to be opened against the master branch for
118 discussion. Only after that pull request has received the necessary
119 amount of approvals, a separate pull request can be opened against the
120 OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch.
121 - A separate pull request against the OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch is
122 required. This holds - contrary to common practice - even if the change
123 can be cherry-picked without conflicts from the master branch. The only
124 exception from this rule are changes which are considered 'CLA: trivial',
125 like e.g. typographical fixes.
126 Proposed by Matt Caswell
130 accepted: no (for: 4, against: 4, abstained: 3, not voted: 0)
146 topic: Accept and merge #11577.
147 comment: #11577 reduces the maximum length of TLS labels.
148 It also breaks standards compliance.
153 accepted: no (for: 0, against: 9, abstained: 1, not voted: 1)
163 Kurt [-1] # 2020-06-09
168 topic: Keep FIPS_mode() as emulated by EVP_default_properties_is_fips_enabled(NULL)
169 Proposed by Tomas Mraz
173 accepted: no (for: 2, against: 5, abstained: 3, not voted: 1)
188 topic: approve PR#8300 statem: fix the alert sent for too large messages
189 Proposed by Tim Hudson
193 accepted: no (for: 1, against: 4, abstained: 6, not voted: 0)