[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> Clearly there are people in the Forum who don’t agree with this analysis –
> I am one.
>
>
>
> Can you clarify – do you believe Position 1 is wrong, and Position 2 is
> correct?  Or are just weighing the two arguments without reaching a
> conclusion?
>

I'm surprised you asked this, as I thought I've made it clear that I
believe Position 1 is wrong
1) It's wrong with past precedent in which we were complying
2) It's wrong in that it creates a number of new risks, as enumerated
3) It's wrong, because I feel there are a number of issues, as highlighted
and which you haven't responded to, that textually do not support Position 1


> In any event, I am the proposer of Ballots 180 through 182 and have no
> interest in withdrawing the Ballots at this point, and I see no harm in
> continuing on our current course.
>

Did you mean to say you disagree with the harm that others, including
myself, have raised? Or do you feel that you do not understand why people
are objecting?


> This course (discussion, then review period, then voting) was laid out in
> each ballot and the process reviewed in some during our F2F meeting in
> Redmond two weeks ago.  No one at the meeting objected at that time, said
> the procedure was wrong, or suggested a different procedure.
>

This is not the standard to which we've conducted the Forum. Is this a
presage to how the next two years will be?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161102/3072c810/attachment-0001.html>