[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Nov 2 17:39:13 UTC 2016

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 02/11/16 15:57, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> > Oh, and I would note the Key Definitions of 8.3
> >
> > d. “Draft Guideline” means a version of a CAB Forum guideline that has
> > not been approved as a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline,
> > regardless of whether or not the Draft Guideline has been published.
> > e. “Final Guideline” is any version of a Draft Guideline that the
> > Participants have agreed is a final version of such Draft Guideline
> > pursuant to the CAB Forum process for approving Final Guidelines.
> > f. “Final Maintenance Guideline” is an errata to or amendment of an
> > existing CAB Forum Final Guideline.
> >
> > Given that our Bylaws establish the "process for approving Final
> > Guidelines" is a ballot, then it naturally follows that Position 1 means
> > that all Review Periods shall be 60 days - because it lacks approval. If
> > we accept that a Ballot occurs before, then it suggests that a 30 day
> > review period is permissible.
> >
> > I'd be curious how you believe the existing definitions can be
> > reconciled with the Position 1 argument, and in particular, when, if
> > ever, we can exercise a 30-day review period.
> I'm afraid I'm not following this argument, in particular the "naturally
> follows" and other argumentation in the 2nd para. Can you expand it a bit?

If we adopt Position 1, it argues that the unballoted text ("The proposal")
is a Draft Guideline, because it's not yet been approved as a Final
Maintenance Guideline. That is, even if you're proposing an errata or
amendment of an existing guideline, the "not been approved" part of Draft
Guideline is triggered - and it's not a Final Guideline, because it has not
followed the CAB Forum process for approving Final Guidelines (aka ballots)

That is, Ballots 181 and 182 are thus Draft Guidelines, and need 60 day
reviews, even though they're modifying existing Final Guidelines, because
they've "not been approved as a ... Final Maintenance Guideline"

This argument holds even if you view 181/182 as Final Maintenance
Guideline, because, by definition, they are also Draft Guidelines. However,
the remainder of the IPR Policy seems to treat Draft Guidelines as mutually
exclusive from Final Guideline/Final Maintenance Guidelines, so even that
position is seemingly not well supported.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161102/7042796c/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list