<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.EmailStyle17
{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">Given the other issues we are encountering, perhaps we should consider a separate provision with an “emergency clause” where a ballot goes into effect on the
final date of voting (before the Review Period) – but this would need a higher yes vote, like 80% of voting CAs and 2/3 of voting browsers. There would be an IP danger during the subsequent Review Period (each CA proceeds at its own risk), but at least we
wouldn’t have to wait 30 days from a successful vote for a change to the BRs to become effective.<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">Gerv – would you support that concept? Most legislatures have similar provisions when they need a new law to take effect immediately.<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"> Jacob Hoffman-Andrews [mailto:jsha@letsencrypt.org]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 25, 2017 11:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Fixing our voting process, again<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This seems like a good change.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Gervase Markham 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">On 21/09/17 01:54, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:<br>
> Technically, the Discussion period ended at 22:00 UTC today (which was<br>
> 3:00 pm Pacific Time). Josh, as the Proposer of the Ballot, accepted<br>
> Gerv and Tim’s email suggestion as to a 3-month transition period, but<br>
> this acceptance occurred at 5:05 pm Pacific Time, two hours after the<br>
> end of the discussion period. Also, we don’t have specific amendment<br>
> language to consider, only a concept.<br>
<br>
<sigh> What an incompetent shower this makes the lot of us all look, eh<br>
:-( Yet another ballot-related tangle for the CAB Forum to sort out.<br>
<br>
How about we change the ballot process slightly so that there is a<br>
discussion period of a _minimum_ of 7 days (and, to prevent submarine<br>
ballots, you could say a maximum of 21), and that after at least 7 days<br>
have elapsed, the proposer has to then take a positive affirmative step<br>
to move the ballot from discussion to voting? I.e. they have to kick off<br>
the voting period themselves?<br>
<br>
That would have prevented this SNAFU, and any others where we find we<br>
are desperately trying to agree a small amendment to ballot language<br>
before the 7-day guillotine cuts in and freezes the ballot.<br>
<br>
Anyone think this is a good idea?<br>
<br>
Gerv<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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>