[cabf_governance] On elections

[Kirk Hall]

As we come up with election rules for the SCWG, I think there are a couple of threshold questions to decide:

1.  Do we want terms of officer on the Forum and the WGs to expire on the same date, or on random dates?  I would vote for the same date, just so there is consistency on when new officers take over.  That could mean that two elections are occurring simultaneously (for Chair of the Forum and Chair of the SCWG), but I think we can handle that.  Plus, if the dates are random, there could still be overlap in the election periods for different offices.

2.  If officer terms will expire on the same date, what date should that be?  I would suggest we realign the start date for new officers to November 1 of the year when elected, to run until October 31 of the second year after the election.  That means we would need to realign the officer dates for the Forum, which currently run through October 21.  The reason I suggest November 1 is so that all officers will be in place for the October F2F meeting - in this case, if the Shanghai meeting were held a week later (Oct. 23-25), the term of the exiting chair would end two days earlier, and the new Chair would take over - not a big deal, but could cause confusion during the planning process before the Fall F2F meeting.

From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Govreform
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:19 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabf_governance] On elections


I agree with Kirk that the best and least controversial strategy is to use the existing CABF election rules for the SC WG.  In general, one of the guiding principles of governance reform has been "don't make unnecessary changes".  I think that means that SC WG should have a chair and vice chair, too.  At least at first, it should essentially be a cloned baby of the CABF in as many ways as makes sense.  They can diverge over time as needs change.

I think we should codify that in a SC1 ballot.  It would be good if we could get SC WG elections started ASAP so that they can finish before CABF elections start.

It isn't too early to for someone to propose draft text to get things moving.

-Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180702/61d0bfee/attachment.html>