Re: [Acme] Current Charter language

[[e-mail]]

On Fri May 15 20:31:00 2015 GMT+0100, ⌘ Matt Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 5/15/15 1:20 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Farrell 
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 15/05/15 19:38, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Farrell 
> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 15/05/15 19:09, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >>>> Any other obvious edits needed?
> >>> 
> >>> LGTM
> >> 
> >> (no hats)
> >> 
> >> Me too. I like it and figure it's good enough.
> >> 
> >> The only thing I'd suggest maybe adding is the illustrative goal 
> >> that an "apt-get install apache" should be able to get the 
> >> required certificates for a web server automatically, if there is
> >> an acme server that is willing to automate that far. And that a
> >> subsequent "apt-get upgrade" on that box should ensure that the
> >> certificate stuff needed for that apache install gets renewed if
> >> necessary.
> >> 
> >> I can see that it might be tricky to phrase that in language that
> >> works in a charter though, but maybe someone's feeling nicely 
> >> creative.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ​ Well, at the moment we says this:
> >> 
> >> "All of the processing must be done in a manner that is
> >> compatible with common service deployment environments, such as
> >> hosting environments.​"
> >> 
> >> Perhaps we can add something just after like this:
> >> 
> >> "Simplicity in certificate installation and maintenance are key
> >> design goals.  Enabling this process to be incorporated into the
> >> standard installation and upgrades of web servers via a single
> >> command line invocation or flag would be especially desirable".
> >> 
> >> That's less catchy than "apt-get install acme-cert", but it may
> >> be more charter-y.
> >> 
> >> Is that worth doing?
> > I like it anyway. I'm fine if you'd prefer to go ahead without it
> > though,
> > 
> > 
> > I like the charter better without it, tbh.  I don't think there's
> > any ambiguity in what we're after in this dimension :)
> > 
> > 
> 
> I agree with Richard, FWIW.
> 
> And +1 on the rest of the existing charter.  SHIPIT.

Fair nuff I can live with(out) it
S

> 
> 
> - -- 
> - - m&m
> 
> Matt Miller < [e-mail] >
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVVkl0AAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1mA4H/R85YcL8VDmICG6ebl/G1tSn
> NksrqJJBBxtsQtw6R2xXWDhJ4QGRPG+Eu3wypQd92uUSb++JwcyF+7B1/pk2gDOO
> jWbVjJLzgYsynegMGLYtAiWmOJKK/Ysz/t6UgrqQAtqh83ShqMFCT/dACKfjIAPR
> JbZN+AsgIyxCx3jzjjebaHszcy4yBQi91CK8dq/Ok8TKuBs/0D4j+faadcg7QO4o
> mtJePv+typLcyWFdE0jg2JxkWSVlVLcjsAWgtMnlTlWCvhaQSyXr9Qlwdp45LptE
> MvcYg9xtzOM1bIp1jg2kqeBoK2V2tvjQTSxfsVG46wGnb/Ow1xB5606Zb1jcTQs=
> =ryWD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>