[cabfpub] Proposed change to bylaws: public voting information

kirk_hall at trendmicro.com kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Fri Feb 1 19:28:47 UTC 2013

Gerv (and all) - Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of our Bylaws (attached) outline which communications are supposed to go on the private (management) address, and which on the public address.

Your original suggestion (pasted in below) was to delete Sec. 5.1 in its entirety.  That means all communications would go on the public list?  Is that really what you are proposing - or instead do you simply want to disclose how each member voted on a ballot on the public list.

I could support the latter (disclosing votes), but I'm not sure I want to eliminate the private address to members entirely.  There are some matters (see Sec. 5.1) I think should not necessarily go on the public list, plus other matters (logistics of the next meeting, which hotel, etc.) likewise don't merit publishing on the public list.

[Gerv's proposal]: Specifically, we would make the following changes which would have this effect:

* Delete section 5.1 ("Member Mail List and Member Web Site") bullet b) in its entirety, and reletter the following sections.

* Update section 5.2 ("Public Mail List and Public Web Site") bullet c) to read:

"Messages formally proposing a Forum ballot (including ballots to establish, modify, or terminate Working Groups), individual votes, vote and quorum counts, and messages announcing ballot outcomes and voting breakdowns."

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:42 AM
To: y-iida at secom.co.jp
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed change to bylaws: public voting information

Hi iida,

On 01/02/13 04:09, y-iida at secom.co.jp<mailto:y-iida at secom.co.jp> wrote:

> Because our company needs to make decision of our vote to favor or not

> favor, I asked that question to explain to my boss the merits and

> demerits of this change.

> Specifically, we are running CAs and we are not a browser vender.

> I could not see apparent merit for CA.  And you are in browser side.

> If you were in CA side, the story was easy since we are sharing same

> merits and demerits.

Thank you for the clarification.

I do not think this is a "browser side or CA side" issue. There are people on both sides who believe the greater transparency is a good thing for governance structures in general, and for the CAB Forum in particular.

If this motion were to pass, no-one could say one thing in public and yet vote another way in private. If your organization has no wish to do that, then you should be fine with the proposal :-)

>> Or are you asking me to speculate on why the people who are against

>> it might hold that view?


> I'm not sure yes or no, but I think it may help me.

I can't see any good reason to oppose the change, so am unable to say why other people might want to.

I am hoping that anyone who would vote against such a motion will say why. It would be a great shame if there was no discussion of the downsides they saw, but then they voted against anyway.



Public mailing list

Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>


<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130201/cf3e9edd/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Bylaws v1.0 (23 Nov 2012).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 207498 bytes
Desc: Bylaws v1.0 (23 Nov 2012).pdf
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130201/cf3e9edd/attachment-0003.pdf>

More information about the Public mailing list