[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

[Gervase Markham]

On 01/05/14 17:56, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> I am in favor of that approach rather than gutting the entire
> requirement.  We haven’t adequately explored the alternatives and
> possible revisions to the language to know whether a simple change could
> satisfy the current concerns.

I agree. I don't deny the problems raised, and it could be that the
Working Group has considered and rejected other options, but I don't
feel "sold" on this.

There are two options - remove the requirements and then think of new
ones to add later (Kirk's suggestion) or keep them until we've more
carefully examined the problem as a group (Jeremy's suggestion).

I'm with Jeremy so, for this ballot in this form at this time:

Mozilla votes NO.

Gerv