[cabf_governance] On elections

[Tim Hollebeek]

So the reason why I think concurrent elections is a bad idea is because we
want to encourage diverse representation and participation among these
positions, and concurrent elections make it harder to achieve that.  It will
also scale poorly as we have more and more working groups.

 

We have historically staggered chair and vice chair elections.  It'd be less
controversial to follow established precedent.  I also think realigning
dates is a bad idea, as then we have to discuss and agree to something
(which experience has shown we are not good at).  Easier to keep the
existing procedures, dates, and terms.

 

Interested to hear other people's perspectives, though.

 

-Tim

 

From: Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 1:31 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance
WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: On elections

 

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
<mailto: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/a33a5923/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180702/a33a5923/attachment-0001.p7s>