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: Rename OSSL_SERIALIZER / OSSL_DESERIALIZER to OSSL_ENCODER / OSSL_DECODER
40 The rationale is that it makes things easier on programmers
41 (encode / decode is easier to write than serialize / deserialize),
42 and also avoids disputes on what is and isn't serialization.
44 Associated issues and PRs: #12455, #12659 and #12660
49 accepted: yes/no (for: X, against: Y, abstained: Z, not voted: T)
57 Shane [-0] # Shane's vote was actually --0
64 topic: Rename OPENSSL_CTX to OSSL_LIB_CTX (as proposed by pull request #12621)
66 The main rationale behind this change is consistency, because many of the new
67 OpenSSL 3.0 types have an OSSL_ prefix, and OPENSSL_CTX is a notable exception.
68 More details can be found in the description and thread of pull request #12621.
70 There was a discussion on openssl-committers ('Rename OPENSSL_CTX to OSSL_WHAT?')
71 and an initial poll on doodle about the favourite replacements for OPENSSL_CTX
72 (https://doodle.com/poll/drku9ziwvkp6tw25).
74 Proposed by Matthias St. Pierre
78 accepted: yes/no (for: X, against: Y, abstained: Z, not voted: T)
93 topic: For change requests which target both the master and the
94 OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch, the following procedure should be followed:
95 - First, a pull request needs to be opened against the master branch for
96 discussion. Only after that pull request has received the necessary
97 amount of approvals, a separate pull request can be opened against the
98 OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch.
99 - A separate pull request against the OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch is
100 required. This holds - contrary to common practice - even if the change
101 can be cherry-picked without conflicts from the master branch. The only
102 exception from this rule are changes which are considered 'CLA: trivial',
103 like e.g. typographical fixes.
104 Proposed by Matt Caswell
108 accepted: no (for: 4, against: 4, abstained: 3, not voted: 0)
124 topic: Accept and merge #11577.
125 comment: #11577 reduces the maximum length of TLS labels.
126 It also breaks standards compliance.
131 accepted: no (for: 0, against: 9, abstained: 1, not voted: 1)
141 Kurt [-1] # 2020-06-09
146 topic: Keep FIPS_mode() as emulated by EVP_default_properties_is_fips_enabled(NULL)
147 Proposed by Tomas Mraz
151 accepted: no (for: 2, against: 5, abstained: 3, not voted: 1)
166 topic: approve PR#8300 statem: fix the alert sent for too large messages
167 Proposed by Tim Hudson
171 accepted: no (for: 1, against: 4, abstained: 6, not voted: 0)