<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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>As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is probably not going to be possible for this particular ballot. Ben did a lot of work to get the current redlined document to accurately reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be at this point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left behind after I reverted the ETSI changes. I would urge a few people to take a close look at it and make sure there are no additional errors …<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a few people that it looks good based on analysis that is independent of mine and Ben’s.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public <public-bounces@cabforum.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim Hollebeek via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>; servercert-wg@cabforum.org<br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as important as the Bylaws. I’ve had the same concern as well as I look through Ben’s redline. After looking at it closer on the plane last night, I have some concerns about what appear to be some changes to cross-references that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re needed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I will also note that I have previously pointed out that according to the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any way, shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state they are ignored for the purposed of updating the requirements. Yet everyone seems to want to review the redlines, not the ballot text. As I’ve pointed out several times, creating an additional representation of the changes that is required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more vocal and active in finding a solution to it that works for everyone. And no, I don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should be used to produce redlines.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Each ballot should have one and only one official representation of the proposed changes, and no alternative unofficial changes should be required. I’ve circulated several proposals, but I really don’t care about the details, as long as the problem is solved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot Text from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline based on that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Tim,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this as a clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can you clarify that?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work to even make sure that the formatting of the document - claiming to be a redline - actually matches to the last canonical version, and that the changes you've highlighted in red, are, well the changes to be made.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because it requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the previous version and showing how it would be corrected.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance Reform Ballot 206<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Purpose of Ballot<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two years to draft. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to be included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were accidentally not included.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important discussion period changes that were approved by the members but then accidentally overwritten.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick Dadashov of SSC.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>--- MOTION BEGINS ---<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version 1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>--- MOTION ENDS ---<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Discussion (7 days)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Vote for approval (7 days)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Servercert-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" target="_blank">http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>