[cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

[Gervase Markham]

On 03/02/14 20:01, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> As discussed in the past, Google has serious reservations with the
> proposed changes to Section 5.2. 

Unless there is consensus (and it actually happens in practice) that
Working Group mailing lists are themselves public, then I agree that the
changes to section 5.2 (with the exception of the change to part c,
which we support) represent a reduction in transparency which is
unacceptable.

If the changes to the Bylaws were also to make it clear that WG mailing
lists should be public, then the changes to section 5.2 would become a
wise and sensible measure to reduce participant overload while making
sure Forum members could keep a high level overview of WG activity, and
would command our support.

For this reason, Mozilla votes No.

> Equally, the unrelated changes to
> Sections 5.3,

Balloting the creation of WGs worked out fine for the performance WG,
and forced me to more clearly describing the scope of the group.
Therefore, we are mildly opposed to this change, as being unnecessary.
The creation of new WGs is not that common, and waiting for a ballot to
pass is not onerous.

> and the significant broadening of Section 1.2, 

I wouldn't see section 1.2 as normative, in a "ah, 1.2 says anyone can
join, therefore we must let anyone join" sense; if Paypal, ETSI and
WebTrust are part of the Forum, then this seems a reasonable change as
part of a summary statement. So Mozilla does not object to the changes
in section 1.2.

Gerv