[cabf_governance] Ballot 206

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Wed Oct 4 06:56:49 MST 2017

Hi Virginia,

I also could not hear well on the call and dropped off after about ½ hour. Thank you for championing the work of the committee and working to push it forward!

I think we still have some work to do, unless it was all covered after I dropped off. Perhaps someone could fill me in on how far you got during the F2F?
Did we go through the rest of Gerv’s comments? How about the redlines? If we finished all that, then perhaps we are ready to move forward.

I still have an issue though with the voting at the Forum (plenary) level as I don’t understand why everyone should not have an equal vote, instead of the voting blocks. I can understand how that makes sense for the working groups but it seems to me that doesn’t play well for the Forum level.


From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Govreform
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:49 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <Govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206

Hi all,

After the call yesterday (what little I could follow), I was pondering what the problem is with moving this ballot forward.  I realized that there is a lot of resistance, questions, comments, concerns, issues, etc. - but no one is championing the ballot.  I have been working on it in order to help this WG, but this isn’t a critical issue for us.  In general, there has been an incredible lack of interest in the documents - and the interest there has been has been picking holes in the drafts without offering any language to solve the perceived issues.

Whoever wants the WG-based IP structure needs to get behind the ballot and drive it.  Right now, I can’t see who that is, if anyone - but that person is not me.  At one point we talked about the fact that Oracle wouldn’t join CAB Forum because of the IP structure, but is that really relevant now?  I think perhaps we should take a poll to see who supports the idea of WG-based IP commitments.  Depending on the numbers, maybe we should drop this for now.  We could still propose the other changes clarifying definitions, etc.

I know this effort is taking much more of my time than I anticipated, and I’m sure that’s true for others as well.  We shouldn’t put any more effort into this ballot and related documents until we know whether anyone really wants these changes.

Best regards,

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20171004/6c63cf26/attachment.html>

More information about the Govreform mailing list