<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class="">Privileged and Confidential<br class=""><br class="">Again, presenting my own view and not a corporate position:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Following are some approaches we could use to get us back on track. Please keep in mind that the Bylaws are <u class="">not</u> defective because they do not contemplate/anticipate every possible scenario - if they did we’d need an entire datacenter to store them. Sometimes one-off, odd situations happen, and it shouldn’t cripple the organization.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><u class="">Option 1</u>. Resubmit the ballot for a revote. Simultaneously work on an amendment to the Bylaws to (1) address voting errors, AND (2) add a provision to address disputes, conflicts, and disagreements among the members. Someone suggested that in such a situation, the Chair/Vice-Chair should be able to make the call, and someone else suggested measuring consensus as to how to proceed. Those are both good ideas, and could be considered (by the Governance WG) for a proposed amendment to the Bylaws.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><u class="">Option 2</u>. Alternatively, we could amend the Bylaws as described above first, and then resubmit the ballot for a revote. This way, if there’s another voting irregularity, we should be prepared to address it. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><u class="">Option 3</u>. Resubmit the ballot for a revote, without amending the Bylaws. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">I think it would be appropriate to have the Chair and Vice-Chair together choose from these options, and then we should move on.</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Best regards,<br class=""><br class="">Virginia Fournier<br class="">Senior Standards Counsel<br class=""> Apple Inc.<br class="">☏ 669-227-9595<br class="">✉︎ <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com" class="">vmf@apple.com</a><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div><br class="">On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:04 PM, <a href="mailto:public-request@cabforum.org" class="">public-request@cabforum.org</a> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Send Public mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a><br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>public-request@cabforum.org<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>public-owner@cabforum.org<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot<br class=""> 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) (Geoff Keating)<br class=""> 2. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot<br class=""> 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) (Jeremy Rowley)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:58:29 -0700<br class="">From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@apple.com><br class="">To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)<br class="">Message-ID: <38083FBD-2415-4743-BE71-A5F2631651B8@apple.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 18 Apr 2017, at 3:14 pm, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public@cabforum.org> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">What is the strained interpretation? Seems logical to me. I also disagree that the energy can be better spent. This is a good exercise and shows that regardless of the ballot outcome, we should fix the confusion in bylaw wording.<br class=""><br class="">The argument is about the process at this point is more interesting than the results. We can?t maintain discipline about the process if we can?t figure out what the process even is.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">If it helps, I think I?ve figured out why different people are interpreting this differently.<br class=""><br class="">A technical person will read ?Public Mail List? as meaning a server, a web site and e-mail relay. A non-technical person will read it as meaning a list, of people or e-mail addresses.<br class=""><br class="">You can read the whole document with each of these meanings in your head and never once hit a definite contradiction, although it?s clear that different bits of the document were written by people with different ideas about what it meant; compare "The Chair will notify both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List of the approval? in 2.3(i)(A) with "all such separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List? in 5.3.<br class=""><br class="">But ?submitting? something to a server is the meaning of 'submit? that is 'to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision? and allows the server to reject it, while ?submitting? something to a list of people is the other meaning of ?submit?, ?to deliver formally?, and you haven?t delivered it if it didn?t arrive.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">So, you?re all right and you?re all wrong, I hope that helped!<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A bigger problem we have is that we have no way to resolve this issue. There has been a vote, and it either passed or it didn?t, and the bylaws are ambiguous on which is the case. So I think that what we need most of all is a resolution mechanism. One simple one is to say that the Chair?s ballot count is definitive.<br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/7392a622/attachment-0001.html><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">Name: smime.p7s<br class="">Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br class="">Size: 3321 bytes<br class="">Desc: not available<br class="">URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/7392a622/attachment-0001.bin><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:04:32 +0000<br class="">From: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com><br class="">To: "geoffk@apple.com" <geoffk@apple.com>, "CA/Browser Forum Public<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Discussion<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>List" <public@cabforum.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)<br class="">Message-ID: <a2d90634324e425999d5e7625efb5226@EX2.corp.digicert.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">+ 1 to the different view points. <br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">However, I think the ambiguity means the ballot didn?t pass and didn?t fail. Per 2.3(d) ? ?If the Draft Guidelines Ballot does not pass the Initial Vote, the ballot will stop.?<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">From: geoffk@apple.com [mailto:geoffk@apple.com] <br class="">Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:58 PM<br class="">To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br class="">Cc: Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com><br class="">Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 18 Apr 2017, at 3:14 pm, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">What is the strained interpretation? Seems logical to me. I also disagree that the energy can be better spent. This is a good exercise and shows that regardless of the ballot outcome, we should fix the confusion in bylaw wording.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The argument is about the process at this point is more interesting than the results. We can?t maintain discipline about the process if we can?t figure out what the process even is.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">If it helps, I think I?ve figured out why different people are interpreting this differently.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A technical person will read ?Public Mail List? as meaning a server, a web site and e-mail relay. A non-technical person will read it as meaning a list, of people or e-mail addresses.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">You can read the whole document with each of these meanings in your head and never once hit a definite contradiction, although it?s clear that different bits of the document were written by people with different ideas about what it meant; compare "The Chair will notify both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List of the approval? in 2.3(i)(A) with "all such separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List? in 5.3.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">But ?submitting? something to a server is the meaning of 'submit? that is 'to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision? and allows the server to reject it, while ?submitting? something to a list of people is the other meaning of ?submit?, ?to deliver formally?, and you haven?t delivered it if it didn?t arrive.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">So, you?re all right and you?re all wrong, I hope that helped!<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A bigger problem we have is that we have no way to resolve this issue. There has been a vote, and it either passed or it didn?t, and the bylaws are ambiguous on which is the case. So I think that what we need most of all is a resolution mechanism. One simple one is to say that the Chair?s ballot count is definitive.<br class=""><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/64018d66/attachment.html><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">Name: smime.p7s<br class="">Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br class="">Size: 4964 bytes<br class="">Desc: not available<br class="">URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/64018d66/attachment.bin><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Subject: Digest Footer<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Public mailing list<br class="">Public@cabforum.org<br class="">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">End of Public Digest, Vol 60, Issue 166<br class="">***************************************<br class=""><br class=""></body></html>