[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the Bylaws

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Ben,

I’d like to see what those changes are before making a choice.  I remember having to create a version 1.8 of the Bylaws before I could create a version 1.9, so I’m not sure what would be missing.  Thanks.


Best regards,

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



On Sep 1, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:

Gov Reform WG,
 
Today I was going through the Bylaws on GitHub to update them from version 1.7 to version 1.9 (to match changes by Ballot 216 (v.1.8) and Ballot 206 (v.1.9).  As Wayne mentioned during the Validation WG call, Ballot 206 inadvertently removed some changes made by Ballot 216.  We’ll have to figure out how to remedy this, but most likely with a ballot.
 
Also during this process, I think I noticed discrepancies between what was on GitHub and what we have on the website.  For instance, the version on the website uses the term “CWG” but the one on GitHub uses “Working Group”.  Also, I think that some of the changes made in section 2.3(c), 2.4(b) and 2.4(c) by Ballot 216 are preserved in the GitHub version, but removed in the website version.
 
I’ve reviewed the different versions of the Bylaws v. 20Feb2018, v. 20MAR18, and 4APR18, and it appears that the changes happened in between the 20-Feb version and the 4-Apr version.  
 
Here are some solutions to the inconsistencies: 
 
1 - just update GitHub with the April 4th version, which we’ve all been using and which is the one on the Website.
2 - use the current GitHub version (which is based on the March 20 version), and revert the CABF Website version 1.9 to what was in the March 20th version (and then have a ballot that bring is up to the April 4 version).
 
Under either approach, there are other changes that we’d need to do to fix some of the missing Ballot 216 language and re-insert it.  And there are a few other changes we could make with a ballot, like a few cross references that need to be fixed and a replacement of the ETSI audit reference with “ETSI EN 319 401”.  
 
Thoughts?
 
Thanks,
 
Ben
 
_______________________________________________
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/20180903/24fbbbd6/attachment.html>