<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body >See in CAPS inline below.<br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> <br>Date: 11/07/2013 3:10 AM (GMT-08:00) <br>To: ben@digicert.com,'CABFPub' <public@cabforum.org> <br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Discussion Draft for Revisions to Bylaws <br> <br><br>Hi Ben,<br><br>On 06/11/13 23:04, Ben Wilson wrote:<br>> Here is another draft for review and discussion.<br><br>Thank you for this. It clears up and simplifies a number of rough edges.<br><br>* The definition of 'browser' changes in 2 ways:<br><br>a) Change to a "major global" requirement. What are we worried about<br>when we make this change? The influx of many small Android browsers? A<br>while ago, KDE was an active member due to Konqueror. Would they qualify<br>under the new rules?<div><br></div><div>NO. NOT UNDER THIS LANGUAGE. <br><br>b) The addition of those who verify code signing certs. Is this to allow<br>in companies such as Oracle, because of Java? YES. What other companies might<br>it cover? NOT SURE. If we are doing a), do they need to be "major global" also,<br>for consistency? I ASSUMED THAT WAS THE CASE.<br><br>* This draft brings everyone under the existing IPR agreement. I would<br>like to see a simpler IPR agreement, designed for individuals and those<br>who do not hold patents, but I agree that until we have that there is no<br>point referencing a separate non-existent agreement!</div><div>I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND.<br><br>* It is no longer required to have a ballot to establish a WG. While I<br>chafed slightly at this requirement for the Performance WG, it did mean<br>we had a discussion about the exact scope and purpose of the group, and<br>now it's up and running the fact that it took two weeks to get there<br>seems not so important.<br>IT STILL MAINTAINS THE CONCEPT OF A VOTE. THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT REFINEMENT OF SCOPE CAN STILL DO THAT BEFORE ALLOWING A VOTE TO PROCEED. EITHER WAY -WHATEVER'S BEST.</div><div><br>* In one place, you say "ballot, unanimous consent, or similar method",<br>and another you say "ballot, unanimous consent, or other form of vote".<br>These should probably be the same. The latter seems better. AGREED -WE'LL GET THAT CHANGED.<br></div></body>