<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div><br class="">On Jan 13, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org" class="">gerv@mozilla.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Hi Virginia,<br class=""><br class="">This is looking really good - again, thank you for your continued hard<br class="">work. I only have a few minor comments.<br class=""><br class="">On 13/01/17 00:09, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Based on comments received from Kirk, Gerv and Ryan, here is an updated<br class="">draft of Ballot 183. Please let me know if you have additional specific<br class="">comments (i.e., proposed language changes).<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">* In 2.2 f), you have changed "adopted" to "approved". Given that the<br class="">notion of "approval" has a special meaning in the IPR Policy, and AIUI<br class="">we want it to mean the point _after_ the IPR review finishes (assuming<br class="">no disclosures), could this change cause confusion?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: ok, I changed it back.</font><br class=""><br class="">* In 2.3 b), you seem to be repeated what is stated in 2.2 c). As 2.2<br class="">now applies to all kinds of ballot, is 2.3 b) now redundant?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: It may be. But I want to have the entire ballot process for Draft Guideline Ballots in Section 2.3 so people can’t come back later and say there’s uncertainty about the process and “Gee, I’m not sure, is there a discussion period for ballots relating to guidelines?” and “I’m not sure, because 2.3 seems to set out the rest of the process, but it doesn’t say anything about a discussion period, so maybe there isn't.” I am erring on the side of clarity to make sure there’s no room for confusion. I know this violates your DRY rule, but I’m not open to changing this in light of all the confusion we’ve already seen. This is why initially I had two completely separate sections - one for guideline ballots, and one for other ballots - so the complete process for each ballot type would be specified in full in each section. If people would prefer, I can go back to that approach.</font><br class=""><br class="">* Same query applies to 2.3 c) and 2.2 d), except that 2.3 c) has an<br class="">extra sentence which would need moving to 2.2 d) before the duplication<br class="">was resolved.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: Same response as above.</font><br class=""><br class="">* The bit in 2.3 h) about notifying the public mailing list and updating<br class="">the website should probably be in 2.2 and apply to all ballots, because<br class="">the website needs updating if we modify the Bylaws, or for some other<br class="">types of change (and the website tends to have a record of all ballots<br class="">anyway). You might add an "as appropriate" if you don't want to make the<br class="">requirement absolute.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: This event <b class="">only</b> occurs if there are no Exclusion Notices filed, and the Initial Vote becomes final. So, this provision is not generally applicable, and shouldn’t be moved to Section 2.2.</font><br class=""><br class="">* 2.3 i) ii) A) and B) are passive - "If no changes have been made". I<br class="">think we all understand that the proposer and endorsers have the right<br class="">to decide whether the motion is changed or not, but the passive makes<br class="">this a bit obscure (people might think the PAG has this ability).<br class="">Perhaps we should change to "If the proposer makes no changes..." in A)<br class="">and "If the proposer makes any changes..." in B).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: ok, change made.</font><br class=""><br class="">* The new part 3) of the ballot, titled "Effect of Ballot" is a good<br class="">idea, but would it not make more sense to change this so instead of a<br class="">property of the ballot, it was a modification to the Bylaws? In other<br class="">words, make the ballot update an appropriate section of the Bylaws to<br class="">say: "Nothing in these Bylaws is intended to supercede or replace<br class="">anything in the IPR Policy. In the event of a conflict between these<br class="">Bylaws and the IPR Policy, the IPR Policy shall govern.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: No, this provision applies to the Ballot/amendment. The purpose is to avoid a situation where someone is trying to read into the ballot some kind of implied change. “Well, it doesn’t expressly change Section 21 of the Bylaws, but they must have meant that by changing Section 2.2.” We don’t need/want any sort of confusion later.</font><br class=""><br class="">This would mean that this rule wouldn't be buried in a ballot text<br class="">somewhere, but would be in the Bylaws itself for everyone to see in the<br class="">future.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#4f7a28" class="">VMF: As mentioned above, it pertains to the Ballot amendment, and not the Bylaws themselves.</font><br class=""><br class="">Hope that helps :-)<br class=""><br class="">Gerv<br class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>