[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Nov 2 17:02:53 UTC 2016

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

> 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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161102/3072c810/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list