[cabfpub] Discussion Draft for Revisions to Bylaws

[Ben Wilson]

See in CAPS inline below.

-------- Original message --------
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> 
Date: 11/07/2013  3:10 AM  (GMT-08:00) 
To: ben at digicert.com,'CABFPub' <public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Discussion Draft for Revisions to Bylaws 
 
Hi Ben,

On 06/11/13 23:04, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Here is another draft for review and discussion.

Thank you for this. It clears up and simplifies a number of rough edges.

* The definition of 'browser' changes in 2 ways:

a) Change to a "major global" requirement. What are we worried about
when we make this change? The influx of many small Android browsers? A
while ago, KDE was an active member due to Konqueror. Would they qualify
under the new rules?

NO.  NOT UNDER THIS LANGUAGE.  

b) The addition of those who verify code signing certs. Is this to allow
in companies such as Oracle, because of Java? YES. What other companies might
it cover? NOT SURE.  If we are doing a), do they need to be "major global" also,
for consistency?  I ASSUMED THAT WAS THE CASE.

* This draft brings everyone under the existing IPR agreement. I would
like to see a simpler IPR agreement, designed for individuals and those
who do not hold patents, but I agree that until we have that there is no
point referencing a separate non-existent agreement!
I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND.

* It is no longer required to have a ballot to establish a WG. While I
chafed slightly at this requirement for the Performance WG, it did mean
we had a discussion about the exact scope and purpose of the group, and
now it's up and running the fact that it took two weeks to get there
seems not so important.
IT STILL MAINTAINS THE CONCEPT OF A VOTE.  THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT REFINEMENT OF SCOPE CAN STILL DO THAT BEFORE ALLOWING A VOTE TO PROCEED.  EITHER WAY -WHATEVER'S BEST.

* In one place, you say "ballot, unanimous consent, or similar method",
and another you say "ballot, unanimous consent, or other form of vote".
These should probably be the same. The latter seems better.  AGREED -WE'LL GET THAT CHANGED.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20131107/ba5ada98/attachment-0003.html>