[cabfpub] Ballot process

Peter Bowen pzb at amzn.com
Wed Nov 2 22:54:27 UTC 2016

This might be an insane idea, and would require a bylaw modification, but what about splitting the timing of the votes?

We could restructure the process such that CAs vote, then there is an IP review period, then the CAs vote to adopt after the review period?  That way we avoid the voting twice or “straw poll” aspect of the proposed process but we also have a reasonable assurance that we aren’t doing IPR reviews for things that are just fishing expeditions.

This allows the process to operate similar to the W3C (and IETF) multi-tier approval system.  The CAs would vote to determine if they approve.  Assuming they do, they direct the chair to initiate the Review Period of the Draft Guideline.  Upon close of the review period, the Browsers then vote to approve or reject the Draft Guideline and turn it into a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline if approved.

I propose that Browsers go second, as we clearly call out that the Guidelines are not operable unless incorporated by Browsers into their program requirements.  Additionally we know that browsers can add requirements and carve out exceptions, so their approval is the key requirement for final implementation.

I do realize this probably requires a bylaw change, but I think it may be worth doing.


More information about the Public mailing list