[cabf_governance] Ballot(s) around Voting

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Jos,

I think this language is moving in the right direction.  I think the following language should be included in the ballot itself, and not in the Bylaws:

"Members are strongly encouraged to take precautions such as voting early, checking that vote submissions have posted successfully, and inquiring about irregularities quickly in order to avoid lost votes, but the responsibility of ensuring a vote is posted successfully falls on the Member."

Regarding this language, it’s the Guidelines that are attached to the ballot, not the Bylaws.  Please see Section 2.3(a).  It need not be the entire Guidelines - only the section that has been revised, if that’s appropriate.  If many changes have been made, then it would make sense to include a redlined version of the entire Guidelines.  Please see my proposed changes.

In the event there is a conflict between the ballot text of the Final Guideline [or Final Maintenance Guideline] included in the Draft Guideline Ballot (the “Ballot Version”) itself and the text in the red-line/comparison copy of the Final Guideline [or Final Maintenance Guideline] Bylaws attached to the Draft Guideline Ballot (the “Redline Version”)submission, the ballot Ballot Version itself shall in all cases take precedence over the Redline Version. redline  In addition, the Ballot Version shall be the text used for implementation should the Draft Guideline Ballot pass. If such a conflict between the Redline Version and the Ballot Version is discovered during the Draft Guideline Ballot discussion or voting period of the Ballot, a corrected new copy of the Redline Version that matches the Ballot Version redline/comparison shall be submitted [is “submitted” the right word here?] to the Public Mail List to correct the issue; this correction corrected Redline Version shall not affect the Draft Guideline Ballot text, discussion period, or voting period. require a new ballot or a change of the voting period.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>






On Jul 24, 2017, at 8:38 AM, Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com> wrote:

I think the problem here is that the process in the bylaws should stand, but doesn’t suffice. What we’ve seen more than once is that some problem with a ballot occurs (whether a voting irregularity like happened with Mike or a conflict between the redline attachment and the ballot text or whatever) and then there is NO process in the Bylaws that says what to do. When Mike’s irregular vote occurred, there literally was no guidance on whether Kirk could by fiat count his ballot, whether the ballot could simply be re-voted as it stood or required resubmission, and how to record the results of the voting to reflect any of that. Gaps like that leave open the door to declaring ballots invalid by reason of not following procedure and can allow all kinds of weirdness and mischief (intentional or unintentional) to occur. My proposal is just a way of trying to close that door by declaring “when weird things happen, THIS is what we do.”
 
That said, I’ve probably (it’s a known failing of mine!) tried to over-complicate this. ☺ Rather than declaring a complicated process for dealing with irregularities, I could definitely see just making that a declaration. Incorporating feedback from our conversation below, then, would result in something like this—would this work better?
 
Ballot 1: Voting Method Changes
Section 2.2 (d) shall be revised from this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose.
To this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted toposted on the public record of the Public Mail List when the voting period expires will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. Members are strongly encouraged to take precautions such as voting early, checking that vote submissions have posted successfully, and inquiring about irregularities quickly in order to avoid lost votes, but the responsibility of ensuring a vote is posted successfully falls on the Member. In the event a significant failure occurs with the Public Mail List that prevents the posting of one or more votes successfully submitted prior to the expiration of the voting period, the chair may opt to declare a temporary halt to the voting period in order to resolve the issue.
 
Ballot 2: Red-Line Attachments to Ballots
Section 2.3 (a) shall be revised to add the following:
A Draft Guideline Ballot will clearly indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline or a Final Maintenance Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Guideline, such ballot will include the full text of the Draft Guideline intended to become a Final Guideline. 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, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.3(j) below. In the event there is a conflict between the ballot text itself and the red-line/comparison copy of the Bylaws attached to the Draft Guideline Ballot submission, the ballot text itself shall in all cases take precedence and shall be the text used for implementation should the Ballot pass. If such a conflict is discovered during the discussion or voting period of the Ballot, a new copy of the redline/comparison shall be submitted to the Public Mail List to correct the issue; this correction shall not require a new ballot or a change of the voting period.
 
Some additional comments provided in-line below:
Ballot 1: Voting Method Changes
Section 2.2 (b) of the Bylaws shall be revised from this:
Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives of corporate affiliates shall not vote.
To this:
Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives of corporate affiliates shall not vote. Members SHOULD subscribe all voting representatives to the Public Mail List prior to the start of the voting period for which they will submit a vote. Vote submissions SHOULD be digitally signed via S/MIME using a publicly trusted certificate to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
 
VMF:  Since these added sentences are both optional (“should”), do we really need to add them?  My view is that we should only add items that are absolutely necessary, and this does not pass that test.
 
JP: I’m not sure I agree that we should only ever add MUST statements to the Bylaws. I’d love to make these MUST statements, but doing so would create additional work for the chair (the first one, at least) without offering a huge improvement to voting. I’m fine with excluding these statements for that reason. 
 
Section 2.2 (d) shall be revised from this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose.
To this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted toposted 
 
VMF:  Is there a big enough difference technically to warrant this change?  Will it cause confusion for members who are wondering how to post vs submit their vote?  This doesn’t seem to add any clarity, so I’m wondering why it’s necessary.
 
on the public record of the Public Mail List
VMF:  Same question - will members be left wondering what the difference is between the Public Mailing List and the public record of the Public Mailing List?  Do they have any control over that?  I think we’re making this less clear.
 
JP: There is a big difference technically between “submitted” and “posted on the public record”. This was the crux of the debate around Mike’s vote last time: he’d submitted it successfully (so he thought), but because he wasn’t subscribed to the mailer, it never posted to the Public Mail List. Several folks felt that because the Bylaws use the phrase “submitted to”, his vote should count. I’m proposing to formally change that by making it clear that the rubric for a successful vote is that the vote actually posts to the Public Mail List.
To a certain extent, members do not have full control over whether their votes are published to the Public Mail List: if there is a technical glitch on the mailer server, their vote may be submitted successfully (they are subscribed to the mailer, their email is transferred successfully, the message should post to the list in a timely fashion) but the server software does not post to the mailer. That’s the reason for adding the extra language about how to validate a legitimate post: if someone checked all the boxes and the server didn’t post their message to the mailer, we don’t have anything in place for how to determine whether or not someone’s vote should count. The simpler way to do that, of course, is the language above where we just declare that if it didn’t post, it didn’t count, and that’s the end of it. I like the finality of that, but it does leave members a little high and dry if they checked all the boxes and their vote didn’t happen to be posted because the server glitched.
 
 when the voting period expires will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. In the event a legitimately submitted vote is not posted to 
VMF:  I think I saw someone else make this comment, but what does “legitimately” mean?  This doesn’t clarify the requirement.
 
JP: It’s intended to be defined by the final sentence of that section: “Evidence of legitimate vote submission SHALL include, at a minimum, email headers demonstrating successful submission of the vote prior to the deadline to the email server hosting the Public Mail List from an address subscribed to the Public Mail List at the time of submission.” I could amplify that definition here to something like “A legitimate vote submission shall be defined as an email submitted to the Public Mail List prior to the expiration of the voting period from an email address subscribed at the time of submission.”
 
the Public Mail List when the voting period expires, the Member who submitted the vote may petition the Forum on the Public Mail List to have the vote counted, providing evidence of proper submission to demonstrate validity.
VMF:  I’m still wondering why this would be allowed.  To me, it makes sense that the member needs to make sure their vote is entered correctly for it to be counted.  If it’s not entered correctly and not counted, tough turnips.  Either it’s there or it’s not.  The effort should be put in WHEN THE VOTE IS CAST to make sure it’s done correctly and will count, not afterwards to somehow try to patch it up.  Now, if you’re talking about a technical glitch on the Forum side, that’s a separate issue - but has that ever happened?
 
JP: I think it’s fine to take the “tough turnips” approach, I just wasn’t sure whether it would be accepted. ☺We have had some technical glitches on the Forum mailer in the last few weeks since the upgrade during the Berlin face-to-face, but those have thankfully only meant members having difficulty receiving mailer messages and not (that I noticed) posting them. Instead of this process, we could put in a trap-door that allows the chair to extend a voting period if there is evidence of a glitch on the mailer server and just leave it there: if you submit and it doesn’t post, it’s on you to validate that; if you submit and the chair discovers the server glitched, she can pause the voting period to resolve the matter?
 
 In the event the vote would not change the outcome of the ballot, the chair MAY exercise the chair’s discretion about counting the vote and SHALL post a resolution of the matter on the Public Mail List.
VMF:  In my view, you would never get to these options, but if the vote wouldn’t change the outcome why would you ever worry about whether or not to count it?
 
JP: Transparency and public record, mostly. From a practical standpoint, I agree that worrying about whether or not to tally a vote that didn’t change the outcome is academic, though. ☺
 
 In the event the vote would change the outcome of the ballot and the evidence of submission indicate the vote was legitimately submitted prior to the deadline, the chair SHALL declare a new seven-day voting period on the same ballot to begin in no less than three calendar days and SHALL post an announcement about the new voting period on the Public Mail List. Evidence of legitimate vote submission SHALL include, at a minimum, email headers demonstrating successful submission of the vote prior to the deadline to the email server hosting the Public Mail List from an address subscribed to the Public Mail List at the time of submission.
VMF:  I don’t agree with this approach.  Members need to vote early enough and make the effort to be sure their vote is entered correctly.  There should not be a revote option.  Other SDOs don’t have this, and it doesn’t happen with presidential elections or otherwise.  If you don’t vote according to the process, then your vote doesn’t count.  Period.  No mulligans.  If a ballot doesn’t pass because of it, then it will need to be resubmitted according to the process in the Bylaws.
 
JP: I think that’s a very reasonable approach to take, but it needs to be iron-clad and it might need one escape clause that allows for adjustments (perhaps just a seven-day automatic extension of the voting period?) if there is evidence of an issue on the mailer server that prevented votes being posted to the mailer successfully. Overall, I totally agree: it’s on the membership to shepherd their votes onto the mailer. 
 
Ballot 2: Red-Line Attachments to Ballots
Section 2.3 (a) of the Bylaws shall be revised to add the following:
A Draft Guideline Ballot will clearly indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline or a Final Maintenance Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Guideline, such ballot will include the full text of the Draft Guideline intended to become a Final Guideline. 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, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.3(j) below. In the event there is a conflict between the ballot text itself and the red-line/comparison copy of the Bylaws attached to the Draft Guideline Ballot submission, the ballot text itself shall in all cases take precedence and shall be the text used for implementation should the Ballot pass.
VMF:  This addition seems ok, although hopefully this is a rare problem.
 
 If such a conflict is discovered during the discussion or voting period of the Ballot, a new copy of the redline/comparison SHOULD be submitted to the Public Mail List to correct the issue; this correction shall not require a new ballot.
VMF:  Why is this optional (should)?  It should be required to minimize any confusion.
 
JP: Fair!
 
 
-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)
 
 
From: <vfournier at apple.com> on behalf of Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Date: Friday, 14 July, 2017 at 22:27 
To: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>, CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot(s) around Voting
 
Hi Jos and all, 
 
I generally do not agree with the proposed approach.  Please see my comments below.  The process in the Bylaws should stand.  If someone doesn’t follow the process and their vote doesn’t count, then it doesn’t count, and we have to live with the result.  If a ballot doesn’t pass as a result, then the proposer should consider re-proposing it, and hopefully getting more votes so that one faulty vote doesn’t make the difference between passing and failing.
 
Other SDOs don’t have a “redo” process for faulty votes.  If you don’t enter your vote properly, it doesn’t count.  End of story.
 
This seems to be a reaction to one corner case that happened with one ballot.  I don’t believe this situation has happened in the whole rest of the Forum’s history.  There’s no need to change the Bylaws for one corner case.  If we made changes to the Bylaws for every blip along the way, the Bylaws would be 157 pages long.  Let’s stick with what we have, which works in 99.99999% of the cases.  It’s up to each member to make sure they submit their votes according to the process so they can be counted.


Best regards,
 
Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
 
 
On Jun 30, 2017, at 7:31 AM, Jos Purvis (jopurvis) via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:
 
We had some brief discussion at the face-to-face about potential ballots to help tweak the voting process. I do think we need a larger effort around changing and improving the voting process, but that’s (a) something that should wait until after the working group changes, and (b) perhaps something that each working group will need to sort for itself. So for right now, to deal with a couple bumps in the road we’ve encountered recently, I have some proposed patches. Since they’re governance-related and might (Maybe? Probably not?) affect the bylaw proposals, I thought I’d float them here first and see what people thought.

Since they’re only slightly related, I would recommend breaking them into two ballots.
 
Ballot 1: Voting Method Changes
Section 2.2 (b) of the Bylaws shall be revised from this:
Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives of corporate affiliates shall not vote.
To this:
Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives of corporate affiliates shall not vote. Members SHOULD subscribe all voting representatives to the Public Mail List prior to the start of the voting period for which they will submit a vote. Vote submissions SHOULD be digitally signed via S/MIME using a publicly trusted certificate to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
 
VMF:  Since these added sentences are both optional (“should”), do we really need to add them?  My view is that we should only add items that are absolutely necessary, and this does not pass that test.
 
Section 2.2 (d) shall be revised from this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose.
To this:
All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted toposted 
 
VMF:  Is there a big enough difference technically to warrant this change?  Will it cause confusion for members who are wondering how to post vs submit their vote?  This doesn’t seem to add any clarity, so I’m wondering why it’s necessary.
 
on the public record of the Public Mail List
VMF:  Same question - will members be left wondering what the difference is between the Public Mailing List and the public record of the Public Mailing List?  Do they have any control over that?  I think we’re making this less clear.
 
 when the voting period expires will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. In the event a legitimately submitted vote is not posted to 
VMF:  I think I saw someone else make this comment, but what does “legitimately” mean?  This doesn’t clarify the requirement.
 
the Public Mail List when the voting period expires, the Member who submitted the vote may petition the Forum on the Public Mail List to have the vote counted, providing evidence of proper submission to demonstrate validity.
VMF:  I’m still wondering why this would be allowed.  To me, it makes sense that the member needs to make sure their vote is entered correctly for it to be counted.  If it’s not entered correctly and not counted, tough turnips.  Either it’s there or it’s not.  The effort should be put in WHEN THE VOTE IS CAST to make sure it’s done correctly and will count, not afterwards to somehow try to patch it up.  Now, if you’re talking about a technical glitch on the Forum side, that’s a separate issue - but has that ever happened?
 
 In the event the vote would not change the outcome of the ballot, the chair MAY exercise the chair’s discretion about counting the vote and SHALL post a resolution of the matter on the Public Mail List.
VMF:  In my view, you would never get to these options, but if the vote wouldn’t change the outcome why would you ever worry about whether or not to count it?  
 
 In the event the vote would change the outcome of the ballot and the evidence of submission indicate the vote was legitimately submitted prior to the deadline, the chair SHALL declare a new seven-day voting period on the same ballot to begin in no less than three calendar days and SHALL post an announcement about the new voting period on the Public Mail List. Evidence of legitimate vote submission SHALL include, at a minimum, email headers demonstrating successful submission of the vote prior to the deadline to the email server hosting the Public Mail List from an address subscribed to the Public Mail List at the time of submission.
VMF:  I don’t agree with this approach.  Members need to vote early enough and make the effort to be sure their vote is entered correctly.  There should not be a revote option.  Other SDOs don’t have this, and it doesn’t happen with presidential elections or otherwise.  If you don’t vote according to the process, then your vote doesn’t count.  Period.  No mulligans.  If a ballot doesn’t pass because of it, then it will need to be resubmitted according to the process in the Bylaws.
 
Ballot 2: Red-Line Attachments to Ballots
Section 2.3 (a) of the Bylaws shall be revised to add the following:
A Draft Guideline Ballot will clearly indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline or a Final Maintenance Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Guideline, such ballot will include the full text of the Draft Guideline intended to become a Final Guideline. 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, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.3(j) below. In the event there is a conflict between the ballot text itself and the red-line/comparison copy of the Bylaws attached to the Draft Guideline Ballot submission, the ballot text itself shall in all cases take precedence and shall be the text used for implementation should the Ballot pass.
VMF:  This addition seems ok, although hopefully this is a rare problem.
 
 If such a conflict is discovered during the discussion or voting period of the Ballot, a new copy of the redline/comparison SHOULD be submitted to the Public Mail List to correct the issue; this correction shall not require a new ballot.
VMF:  Why is this optional (should)?  It should be required to minimize any confusion.
 
 
 
-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)
 
_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform>
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20170724/5a979ed8/attachment-0001.html>