<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" target="_blank">jimmy@it.auth.gr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Perhaps I misunderstood Kirk's original intent so please correct me
if I'm wrong. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I certainly understood Kirk's proposal to be about the discussion period, since it's specifically requested to be included in a ballot about the discussion period.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
IMO the "editorial changes" proposal is independent to ballots being
discussed or voted on. The proposal is that at any time (<u>not
during an official ballot discussion or voting period</u>), if
someone detects a typo or an incorrect reference in a CA/B Forum
document that fits the definition of an "editorial change" (as noted
in the W3C Process Document provided by Virginia), that member may
just send an e-mail to the public list saying what the problem is
and a recommended correction, and that this is an "editorial
change".<br>
<br>
Examples that would probably qualify as "editorial changes" from
past cases: <br>
<ol>
<li>"certificaet" to "certificate"</li>
<li>The name of the document "baseline requirements"<br>
</li>
<li>Incorrect references when the BRs were converted to RFC3647
format<br>
</li>
</ol>
Then, there are two possible routes:<br>
<ol>
<li>If there is an objection made by a member, the change is no
longer considered "editorial" and it has to go through a
separate ballot process (changes proposed by a member, endorsed
by two others, discussed and voted on). <br>
</li>
<li>If there is no objection, it will be included in the text of
an upcoming ballot (whatever ballot that is), and this
particular change will be marked in the introduction section of
the ballot as "editorial change" or "errata", or whatever. It
will be discussed and voted along with the rest of the ballot
language. Then, two possible outcomes:</li>
<ol>
<li>The ballot passes, and so are the "editorial changes"</li>
<li>The ballot fails, so the "editorial changes" will have to
wait for a next ballot</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<p>These "editorial changes" will always have to catch a "ballot
train" in order to be formally accepted. They can be introduced by
any member when there is no formal ballot discussion or voting
period.</p></div></blockquote><div>I don't believe that was the proposal at all (and certainly not in line with some of the other changes), but it also introduces its own problem. For example, if someone proposes that "X" is an editorial change the day before a ballot, does that mean no objections have been received? If it rides the train to the next ballot, does that mean if an objection is raised during that ballot, it gets removed from the ballot? What happens if both an editorial change and a ballot affect the same area?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>"Worst case scenario" I can think of:</p>
<ol>
<li>The forum is discussing about a new ballot and the formal
discussion period starts at day X</li>
<li>A member introduces an "editorial change" <u>one day</u>
before day X.</li>
<li>The official discussion period for the new ballot begins,
including the text with the "editorial changes" at day X</li>
<li>Members have 7 days of official discussion to object to the
"editorial changes", in which case the ballot author and
endorsers will either remove these changes before the voting
period begins or let them be and risk the ballot failing.</li></ol></div></blockquote><div>This was my point. In order to facilitate the 'objection' phase, we rapidly converge upon a hijacked voting process - in which we allow 7 days for review/objection, and/or then 7 days for voting.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><ol>
</ol>
<p>I don't mind working on a separate ballot for this and let Gerv's
ballot go ahead.</p></div></blockquote><div>Yes. This seems a most productive outcome is to separate these two.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p> Would people support this? </p></div></blockquote><div>No.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>Do you see any other
risks in this process?</p></div></blockquote><div>A number of risks, still unaddressed. I think on a more fundamental level, we need to ask ourselves what the cost of the current process is, relative to when we've had to exercise it. By my tracking, it's only been excercised once - all other bits turned out to not be editorial in nature. I'm curious if other folks have a different perspective and can highlight different ballots that achieved this, or highlight anything editorial that remains unaddressed due to it being 'too much overhead'. I think the complexity and harm for the process, in light of those two, greatly overshadows any potential benefit, and the process challenges alone are significant.</div></div></div></div>