[cabfpub] Ballot 142 - Elimination of EV Insurance Requirement

[Rich Smith]

+1

The following should not be construed as an endorsement or vote in favor of
ballot 142, especially as Comodo has endorsed the competing ballot 141.  I
don't have the expertise in insurance matters, so leave it up to others w/in
Comodo to make the decision as to which is the best approach.  This is
simply a point of order.

The job of the chair/vice chair is not to decide which ballots to post, it
is to post those which meet the requirements of the bylaws and track the
voting thereof.  Gerv posted a ballot proposal, two other members endorsed
that proposal, and Gerv asked the co-chair to post as a final ballot.  At
that point, as per the Forum bylaws, unless there is something I'm missing,
the ballot should have been posted.

Kirk, I find it somewhat disturbing that as one of your first official acts
as vice chair, rather than post Gerv's ballot as requested, you ignored his
request and posted your own competing ballot.  Your ballot also meets the
requirements of the bylaws, so if you want to post a ballot which tries to
address similar issues to Gerv's ballot at the same time, that is your
prerogative as a member of this Forum, however in ignoring Gerv's request to
post his properly formed and endorsed ballot, if this was intentional, IMO
you have over-stepped your authority as co-chair.  I hope that you will
promptly correct this action and that in the future you will exercise your
duties as vice chair in a fair and neutral manner as prescribed in the
Bylaws.

Regards,
Rich Smith



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]
> On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:08 PM
> To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; CABFPub
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 142 - Elimination of EV Insurance
> Requirement
> 
> On 01/12/14 18:15, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com wrote:
> > Gerv -- why are you posting a competing Ballot to Ballot 141?
> 
> Well, the short answer is because I asked you to post it, twice, and
> you didn't :-) So it seems I have to post it myself.
> 
> > Would you consider withdrawing your Ballot 142 now, and only
> reposting
> > if Ballot 141 fails?  That would be much appreciated.
> 
> The idea I am putting forward has been discussed at a CAB Forum
> meeting, was put into words (and not very many of them) a few days ago,
> and put out for comment. On 30th November at 11:22 UK time, and again
> at 13:14, I asked you to formally post my ballot. You didn't, and
> instead posted your own. If anyone has posted a "competing" ballot,
> it's not me.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20141202/7dd230fa/attachment-0003.bin>