[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Thu Nov 3 16:14:20 UTC 2016

On 03/11/16 15:15, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Now, if you don't agree that everything starts as a DG, it'd be useful
> to understand why. 

No, I agree everything starts as a DG.

> Similarly, if it does begin as a DG, it's useful to
> understand why you don't believe a ballot to amend by a document meets
> the formal definition set forth in e. It may *also* meet the definition
> of f, but if it meets the definition of e, it's also a DG -> FG transition.

Well, as someone who was part of the group drafting the original IPR
policy, I can tell you that the intent was certainly that "Final
Guideline" == "new document", and "Final Maintenance Guideline" ==
"patch to existing document".

> If we accept a successful ballot to amend an existing FG is both a Final
> Guideline *and* a Final Maintenance Guideline (rather than *or*), then
> it's a matter of determining whether the Review Period should be that of
> FGs (60 days) or FMGs (30 days). If you argue 30 days, then you're
> saying there is a subclass of FGs which don't go through the 60 day period.

And if we accept your initial assumption here, where is the part of the
document which says there _can't_ be a subclass of FGs which don't go
through the 60-day period?

> The core issue here is that the IPR policy is subtlely inconsistent with
> whether or not e/f are mutually exclusive, given the definition in d. 

I think the definition in D is pretty clear that Draft Guidelines become
one or the other, due to the use of "or". If it could possibly become
both, it would say "and/or".

Also, can you draw out the consequences of the "DG -> FG -> FMG"
position for Position 1 and Position 2?


More information about the Public mailing list