<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmail-im
{mso-style-name:gmail-im;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I also think that the ballot proponents can add a provision to the repeat Ballot 201 that the results of Ballot 198 are invalid, null, and void. That would make
the consensus of the Forum clear. Ben/Jeremy?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">And yes, we should consider further Bylaws changes to deal with questions like this on a systematic basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot 198 - .Onion Revisions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes Kirk, your understanding is correct. What Geoff and Gerv have offered is consistent with what I proposed as "Option 3"<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I made the following suggestions on how to resolve this:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">3) The ballot is invalid (due to the inconsistency)<br>
- In this case, we're saying the ballot is null because of the mismatch<br>
- Supporting Argument: The Bylaws in 2.3(a) indicate that a Draft Guideline Ballot proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline will include a redline or comparison, and that such redline or comparison be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist
at the time the ballot is proposed. Jeremy's redline was not against that section, ergo, was not a valid ballot.<br>
- Solution Suggestion: Hold a ballot to agree on this interpretation for this specific ballot<br>
- Solution Suggestion p2: Adopt it fixed<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It sounds like there's at least sufficient agreement here to endorse a ballot, which would unambiguously resolve any questions of process for this or the future :)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Geoff and Gerv - I was going to accept Ballot 198 as proposed in the text of Jeremy's May 3 email that starts "The ballot is now in voting". But I guess earlier versions of the ballot during the discussion period had language that was
different from the language in the attached pdf - I see that is true for Jeremy's email dated April 24.<br>
<br>
Bylaw 2.3(a) says in part "If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline
***." So that implies the redline version is part of the ballot, along with stated text in the email message containing the ballot. Here, they were not the same.<br>
<br>
So is your opinion that we should record the result of Ballot 198 as "Invalid" or "Failed"? That probably makes sense, and I can withdraw the Review Notice.<br>
<br>
What do others think about how we should mark the status of Ballot 198?<br>
<br>
<span class="gmail-im">-----Original Message-----</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">From: Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:17 AM</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cc: Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>><br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot 198 - .Onion Revisions<br>
<br>
On 16/05/17 21:39, Geoff Keating via Public wrote:<br>
> The ‘ballot’ is the thing that includes the ‘redline or comparison’,<br>
> bylaws section 2.3(a). If it doesn’t have one of those, it’s not a<br>
> ballot. So the redline is definitely part of the ballot and if<br>
> there’s some confusion it can be consulted to make it clear what<br>
> change was voted on.<br>
><br>
> In addition, the redline has to be against a specific version of the<br>
> guidelines. If that wasn’t done properly, to the point where there’s<br>
> a question as to what the ballot means or where votes might have been<br>
> made based on the incorrect information, then I’d think the ballot<br>
> would be invalid.<br>
<br>
I think this is the best interpretationof the bylaws.<br>
<br>
Gerv<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>