[cabfpub] Draft Ballot - BR corrections (revised)

[Peter Bowen]

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 25, 2016 8:45 PM, "Peter Bowen" <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Below is a revised ballot based on ballot 167 which failed to get quorum.  I was unable to get consensus on language around the new RFC reference text the previous ballot had in section 7, so it has been removed.
> >
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Let me say thank you for continuing to drive this and build consensus. I know this has been a long, and arguably unrewarding ballot, though much needed. You've done a great job here herding the cats.
> 
> However, with that said, one thing that does sadden me some is that it seemed you had those conversations in private in terms of seeking consensus for Section 7 language. While I can understand the appeal of expediency in privately reaching out, I think it does a disservice to have those discussions offlist. While I know we at Google have certainly shared concerns with the language suggesting "When in conflict with the RFCs, the Requirements control," and preferred your original version which was to the effect of "The RFCs should be followed, unless noted", I have no idea who the objecting parties are, why they objected, nor what alternatives there may have been.
> 
> I know that the prolonged discussion of ballots can be personally and professionally draining, and the desire to "get something to a vote" is great - especially on the wake of a ballot that seemed to fail for no other reason than member apathy, judging by the lack of response and objections to what is purely cleanup and maintenance - but I should hope that, for future ballots, whether cleanup or enhancement, when you find there is disagreement between parties, you bring it to the list. This allows the public to understand the positions, members to understand the disagreement, and hopefully consensus to be reached. The unfortunate removal of the changes to Section 7, though vaguely explained, seem entirely unjustified, and that is unfortunate.

As I said when I started to draft this ballot, anything that seemed controversial, in my opinion, would be moved to a separate ballot.  This discussion on this list between yourself and Jeremy included Jeremy saying “I’m suggesting this language change is a material change and non-trivial. I’m saying the old language needs to be retained as the impact hasn’t really been evaluated yet.”.  You responded to that email and included a paragraph starting "Though I strongly disagree”.  From my view, this exchange clearly indicated that the section 7 changes were controversial, at least from the viewpoint of some members.  Therefore I removed it from this ballot.

> In either event, I do hope this ballot will proceed, that members will vote so that we might find quorum on an important aspect of much needed maintenance, and that we might be able to go forward with a public discussion on the points of Section 7 and much needed spec compliance. I must admit, I'm somewhat shocked to be lead to believe a member would disagree about the need to adhere to the relevant standards for certificates, but judging by what crt.sh shows for non-compliance, perhaps I shouldn't be.

Once this current corrections ballot is put to bed, I can propose a brand new ballot with just the section 7 changes.  This will ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to discuss the impacts of the proposed change and specification compliance.  However I would ask that discussion please be separated from this ballot, as this ballot no longer should be making any changes in that area.

Thanks,
Peter