[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Rich Smith via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> Ryan,
> I agree with your misgivings regarding Position 1 in general.  However,
> for reasons I stated on the management group, and will re-state here for
> the public, I don't believe those misgivings apply to the current ballots
> 180-182.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing contained in these
> three ballots which has not already been voted on and passed by the proper
> voting methods contained in the Bylaws.
>

So, I appreciate it's a compelling argument, but I don't think it stands in
consistency with our Bylaws.

While it's true that the text is what we've previously discussed, I don't
believe our bylaws permit us to, retroactively, call for exclusions on bits
and pieces. Notably as well, Ballot 180 is not something we've voted on. So
it doesn't meet the criteria that you've set out here - that it's something
we've already agreed.

My concern here is that we need to ensure Ballots 180, 181, and 182 follow
the Bylaws. The many issues we've highlighted suggest that there is both
precedent and concern that they do not - certainly not as understood by
some members when they contractually agreed to the IPR policy.

So I still feel that it's necessary and critical that we resolve these
matters *before* 180/181/182.


> In regard to your overall points about the process in general, I am
> largely in full agreement with you, and think that Position 2 is the best,
> though I do think we need to make some tweeks to the Bylaws, and possibly
> to the IPR Policy in order to address some legitimate concerns which
> Virginia and the other proponents of Position 1 have brought up.  I'll
> outline my position on that in another message.  However, for ballots
> 180-182, due to their unique nature, IMO the concerns of both positions
> have been addressed, so we should move forward with these ballots in order
> to get back to an even keel in terms of having finalized work product which
> is fully compliant with our current Bylaws and IPR Policy.
>

I truly want to get us back to being a productive Forum, and I'm especially
appreciative to the sensitivities that the CA members have due to the
current ambiguities in expectations around 3.2.2.4. However, unless we
resolve these matters before 180/181/182, we have not resolved the
concerns, and merely 'waisted' an additional 60-120 days of members time.

Hopefully this highlights the critical need to withdraw Ballot 180/181/182
as soon as possible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161104/a5f93120/attachment.html>