[cabf_governance] Proposed Bylaws Revision

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Sep 4 23:56:14 MST 2018


The summary of the issue is that the adopted Version 1.8 [1] through Ballot
216 [2], which updated the discussion period process. There had also been
Version 1.7, through Ballot 205 [4], which tweaked the language for clarity
around membership. When the Forum adopted Version 1.9 [5] through Ballot
206 [6], the approach Apple took is the one Apple is objecting to now -
namely, that a version of the Bylaws be adopted in-full. The issue is that
Ballot 206's version of the Bylaws (with the Governance Reform changes
incorporated), had failed to keep up to date with the Ballots 205 and 216,
causing both of those changes to be erased by Ballot 206.

The intent being captured here is to reharmonize the Bylaws by
incorporating those previously agreed upon changes and clarifications -
which relate to providing flexibility around the discussion period without
having to 'burn a ballot' (that is, deliberately let the vote fail so that
a new ballot can be started with some changes from the discussion period
incorporated), as well as provide harmonization around the audit schemes
used for membership, based on the audit scheme's evolution over the past
several years since the language was originally added.

You can access the copies of the Red Line at
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/2018-September/000635.html , as
the proposed Bylaws 2.0 (attachment-0001.pdf). Beyond those aforementioned
changes, there's one small set of changes to align the Bylaws language
regarding LWGs to reflect the adoption of Bylaws 1.9 (the GovReform bylaws)
and put concrete dates and versions in, rather than language like "six
months after adoption of this version," to ensure that this new version
doesn't inadvertently extend the LWGs past the intended sunset as adopted
in Ballot 206.

Hope that clarifies things, and hopefully it's as boring as this email
makes it out to be :)

[5] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-Bylaws-v.1.9_4APR18.pdf

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:26 AM Virginia Fournier via Govreform <
govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:

> I’m sorry I was not able to attend the meeting today, as I was on a plane.
> Apple objects to this approach.  We need to review the proposed changes
> and understand why they need to be made.  It’s not clear why this is coming
> up now, and why the changes are necessary.
> Also, would you please send me the redline directly?  The attachments
> always get stripped off of the list emails.  Thanks.
> Best regards,
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com
> On Sep 4, 2018, at 11:37 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform <
> govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
> On today’s Governance Reform WG call we decided that the best approach
> would be to do as Kirk suggested and just re-adopt the entire Bylaws with
> the changes that needed to be made.  Even though the attached redlining may
> not be based off the “official” version, it does baseline off of the
> version 1.9 that is on the website.   DigiCert will be proposing adoption
> of this by Forum ballot.  I think Jos from Cisco agreed to endorse.  We
> would need one more endorser to move forward with this.
> Thanks,
> Ben
> <CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot.docx>
> <CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180905/76cc71cf/attachment.html>

More information about the Govreform mailing list