[cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Jul 11 23:57:10 UTC 2016


Right, I was asking if you had any more examples, beyond this one, since
your argument was that it would clutter Ballots.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> wrote:

> Actually, Ben’s email “anyone object if I change 6 to f?” is, in essence,
> a Consent Ballot.
>
>
>
> *From:* Kirk Hall
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 4:47 PM
> *To:* 'Ryan Sleevi' <sleevi at google.com>
> *Cc:* 'public at cabforum.org' <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> Right now there is no authority under the Bylaws for Ben to change “6” to
> “f”, so I was responding to that.  It has come up before.  Technically, our
> Bylaws require a Ballot to change “6” to “f”.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com <sleevi at google.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 4:11 PM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>
> *Cc:* public at cabforum.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> That doesn't seem like a strong argument for them, and seems to create a
> substantial area for risk.
>
>
>
> The implications are that a failure to vote become even moreso a 'fail
> open' (default pass) rather than the current structure, which is 'fail
> closed' (default fails if it can't obtain quorum or the requisite
> constituencies)
>
>
>
> It's clear that members have had some disagreements about what constitutes
> 'minor' matters. And it's also true that sometimes changes meant to be
> benign (e.g. fix reference from X to Y) can in fact have significant
> ramifications to the interpretation of the document.
>
>
>
> While I understand and appreciate the desire to try to simplify the
> balloting processing, I'd be curious if you can think of any Ballots that
> you feel were a waste of time or caused clutter. As someone who has often
> argued against "change for change's sake", it would help if you could
> provide a bit more evidence of the need for this proposed process, so that
> it could be understood the problem you're trying to solve.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> wrote:
>
> For some time I have been thinking about proposing a Bylaws addition that
> allows for “Consent Ballots”, just as corporations and LLCs have.
>
>
>
> I don’t have specific language right now, but basically this would allow
> the Chair (and/or Vice-Chair?) to propose a “Consent Ballot” (or similar
> name) reserved only for minor matters such as typos or obvious errors,
>  acceptance of new CABF members after discussion of an application in a
> Forum call (right now we just accept by consensus on the call), renumbering
> sections, etc.  A Consent Ballot would be posted to the Public list, and
> any single Member could object in [7? 10?] days.  If there is an objection,
> the matter would have to start again via a regular Ballot method – two
> endorsers, one week review, one week for voting, etc.  If there is no
> objection during the time limit, the change would be made.  (Or after
> clarification, maybe a new Consent Ballot could be started if justified.)
> Consent Ballots would be clearly marked as such in the Subject line – and
> maybe we send two deadline reminders before the period to object expires.
>
>
>
> A Member could object to use of the Consent Ballot for any reason (no
> reason need be given), including feeling that discussion or clarification
> was needed – it would not necessarily mean opposition to the proposal, and
> a Member who objects to a Consent Ballot might very well end up voting in
> support in a regular Ballot.
>
>
>
> The main reason for adding a Consent Ballot process is so we don’t waste
> time (two weeks) and clutter up our Ballot record with minor stuff which
> doesn’t really need a full Ballot.
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 7:33 AM
> *To:* Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> Would anyone have an objection if we just changed the “6” to an “f” since
> it’s an obvious erratum / minor transcription error?
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dean Coclin
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 10, 2016 3:47 PM
> *To:* public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> I noticed an error when I was reviewing the bylaws after a recent vote.
> The current bylaws (section 2.2) read as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
> *2.2       Ballots Among Forum Members*
>
>
>
> Ballots will be conducted in accordance with the following rules.
>
>
>
> (a)  Only votes by Members shall be accepted.
>
>
>
> (b)  Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives
> of corporate affiliates shall not vote.
>
>
>
> (c)  A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be
> published for review and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot
> needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The review
> period then shall take place for at least seven calendar-days before votes
> are cast.
>
>
>
> (d)  The CA/Browser Forum shall provide seven calendar-days for voting,
> with the deadline clearly communicated via the members’ electronic mailing
> list. All voting will take place online via the members’ electronic mailing
> list.
>
>
>
> (e)  Only votes that indicate a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to the ballot
> question shall be considered (i.e. votes to abstain and votes that do not
> indicate a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response will not figure in the calculation
> of item 6, below).
>
>
>
> (f)   Members fall into two categories: CAs (comprising issuing CAs and
> root CAs, as defined in the membership criteria) and product suppliers (as
> defined in the membership criteria). In order for the motion to be adopted
> by the Forum, two-thirds or more of the votes cast by the Members in the CA
> category must be in favor of the motion, and at least 50% plus one of the
> votes cast by the members in the browser category must be in favor of the
> motion.  At least one CA Member and one browser Member must vote in favor
> of a ballot for the ballot to be adopted.
>
>
>
> (g)  A ballot result will be considered valid only when more than half of
> the number of currently active members has participated. The number of
> currently active members is the average number of member organizations that
> have participated in the previous three meetings (both teleconferences and
> face-to-face meetings).
>
>
>
> (h)  The CA/Browser Forum will tabulate and announce the results within
> one calendar-day of the close of the voting period.
>
>
>
> There is no “item 6, below” in (e) but in talking to Kirk who wrote this,
> he took it from the old website and forgot to change “6” to “f”.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any other bylaw corrections that we could put into 1
> ballot?
>
> Thanks
> Dean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160711/ed9c93e0/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list