[cabf_governance] On elections

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Mon Jul 2 11:04:37 MST 2018



On 2/7/2018 8:39 μμ, Tim Hollebeek via Govreform wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I think this is a very pessimistic approach :)

In most officer elections I have participated, the officer term starts
on the first date of some month and this is usually agreed upon when the
election process is discussed and approved. I think this applies to
National elections too. With that said, beginning the new term on
November 1st for the next officer (or the officer after that) sounds
like a milestone better than the Oct 22nd. It should not be relevant
with the Shanghai meeting. Nobody can predict a future meeting that
begins Oct 30 and ends Nov 2nd :)

I also wouldn't mind concurrent elections since there is some additional
administrative effort involved (engage auditors, etc) and probably would
be better if these were done "close enough", at least at the beginning
where we only have one Chartered WG. If we have many WGs, this might not
be feasible, but right now we are able to align and deal with elections
once for both the Forum and the SCWG.

Are WGs able to change the term of their officers or must they obey the
Bylaws of the general forum?


Dimitris.

>  
>
> -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
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180702/48c19ec2/attachment.html>


More information about the Govreform mailing list