<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Perhaps I misunderstood Kirk's original intent so please correct me
if I'm wrong. <br>
<br>
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>
<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>
<p>I don't mind working on a separate ballot for this and let Gerv's
ballot go ahead. Would people support this? Do you see any other
risks in this process?<br>
</p>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/12/2017 6:34 μμ, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvbomJH3zp-gEYVACmhZk_-HE1EMR8MSsKfNR2HR=Cg=Rg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Kirk, Dimitris,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could you explain how you imagine this process working? I
think it's presently underspecified, highlighting Gerv's
concerns.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here's just a small sample of realistic problems that would
emerge:</div>
<div>1) At what point can such Editorial Changes be proposed?
During discussion or during voting?</div>
<div>2) At what point are objections raised? What happens if
votes were based on text that was Editorial, objections were
raised that they're not Editorial, and in the retrospective
analysis of the original language, the votes change?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Working through a simple analysis of timelines and
identifying at what point X can happen and at what point it
can no longer happen would do a great service in identifying
further deficiencies in the proposed language. I suspect that
if we attempt to solve this problem, it will inevitably end up
looking very similar to our voting procedures, since the
design of those are to allow folks ample time to vote and to
avoid confusion as to what is being voted on. Thus, I question
the fundamental value.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I appreciate the enthusiasm being applied for what members
may see as 'simple' fixes, but as we know with substantive
changes in process, these are hardly that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Further, I would encourage those proposing the "Editorial
Language" to do so in a separate ballot. I think we'd be
reasonably confident to say that this is not a problem being
introduced by this Ballot, therefore, I would suggest we not
attempt to solve it by attaching unnecessarily to this ballot.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Kirk
Hall via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-4835283044217413735WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">+1
– sounds good to me.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Gerv
– are you willing to make this change to your draft
ballot?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:<a
href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jimmy@it.auth.gr</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 8, 2017 3:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Virginia Fournier <<a
href="mailto:vfournier@apple.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vfournier@apple.com</a>>;
CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>>;
Kirk Hall <<a
href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>>;
Gervase Markham <<a
href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gerv@mozilla.org</a>></span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re:
Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Offering
a previously stated suggestion.<br>
<br>
"Editorial changes" (the definitions 1 and 2 from
W3C Process Document seem reasonable) must be
proposed to the public list and clearly identified
as such. If any voting member objects and
considers such change as "not editorial", then the
formal ballot process shall take place. if no
objections are raised, then these editorial
changes shall be applied along with changes
approved via the next upcoming ballot.<br>
<br>
Does this make sense?<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 8/12/2017 9:14 μμ,
Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe we could state that
“editorial” changes could be made without
restarting the discussion period. “Editorial”
could be defined something like 1 and 2 below
(taken from the W3C Process Document):
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<h4
id="m_-4835283044217413735correction-classes"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">6.2.5
Classes of Changes</span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This
document distinguishes the following 4
classes of changes to a specification. The
first two classes of change are considered <dfn
id="m_-4835283044217413735editorial-change"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">editorial
changes</span></dfn>, the latter two <dfn
id="m_-4835283044217413735substantive-change"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">substantive
changes</span></dfn>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">1.
No changes to text content</span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">These
changes include fixing broken links, style
sheets or invalid markup.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">2.
Corrections that do not affect conformance</span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">Changes
that reasonable implementers would not
interpret as changing architectural or
interoperability requirements or their
implementation. Changes which resolve
ambiguities in the specification are
considered to change (by clarification) the
implementation requirements and do not fall
into this class.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">Examples
of changes in this class include correcting
non-normative code examples where the code
clearly conflicts with normative
requirements, clarifying informative use
cases or other non-normative text, fixing
typos or grammatical errors where the change
does not change implementation requirements.
If there is any doubt or dissent as to
whether requirements are changed, such
changes do not fall into this class.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">3.
Corrections that do not add new features</span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">These
changes <em><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">may</span></em> affect
conformance to the specification. A change
that affects conformance is one that:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">makes
conforming data, processors, or other
conforming agents become non-conforming
according to the new version, or</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">makes
non-conforming data, processors, or other
agents become conforming, or</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman"">
</span></span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">clears
up an ambiguity or under-specified part of
the specification in such a way that data, a
processor, or an agent whose conformance was
once unclear becomes clearly either
conforming or non-conforming.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">4.
New features</span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0433ff">Changes
that add a new functionality, element, etc.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best regards,<br>
<br>
Virginia Fournier<br>
Senior Standards Counsel<br>
Apple Inc.<br>
<span style="font-family:"Segoe UI
Symbol",sans-serif">☏</span> <a
href="tel:%28669%29%20227-9595"
value="+16692279595" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">669-227-9595</a><br>
<span style="font-family:"Segoe UI
Symbol",sans-serif">✉</span>︎ <a
href="mailto:vmf@apple.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vmf@apple.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kirk Hall <<a
href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Gerv, this started as your ballot, so it's up
to you - do you want to allow such minor edits
without restarting the discussion period, or
not?<br>
<br>
If yes, you need to put defining / permissive
language in the ballot. I won't be
comfortable if we have no written permission
for edits, but then allow them informally
later when ballots have errors - it needs to
be in the ballot.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Gervase Markham [<a
href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gerv@mozilla.org</a>] <br>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:23 PM<br>
To: Kirk Hall <<a
href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>>;
CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>>;
Ryan Sleevi <<a
href="mailto:sleevi@google.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sleevi@google.com</a>><br>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <<a
href="mailto:vfournier@apple.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vfournier@apple.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot
XXX: Update Discussion Period<br>
<br>
On 08/12/17 18:17, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Just putting the question
to you in the abstract – do you think we <br>
should have to restart a seven day
discussion just to correct an <br>
obvious typo?</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Let us say the answer to that question is
"no". Then the obvious next question is: "how
do you, the proponent of this idea,
define 'obvious typo' in a way which does not
open the door to substantive changes, or
changes which people would argue about
the substantiveness of, and without inventing
Yet Another Voting/Polling Mechanism"?<br>
<br>
Gerv</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre>
<pre>Public mailing list</pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Public@cabforum.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>