[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

Wayne Thayer wthayer at godaddy.com
Tue Nov 8 20:03:28 UTC 2016

Ryan – if Gerv’s proposal were followed by a ballot to the effect of: ‘for the purposes of ballots 180-182, our bylaws and IPR policy shall be interpreted to mean <insert Mark Braner’s interpretation>’ and that ballot were to pass, would that address your immediate concern and allow us to proceed with these ballots while we’re figuring out how to amend the bylaws going forward?

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:08 PM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>> wrote:
Given that we will simultaneously be discussing and hopefully before too
long be voting on some changes to the Bylaws to solve the problem, their
trust does not have to extend for that long.

You said "hopefully before too long" - but we know how long it takes to get stuff accomplished in the Forum, especially when some members fail to understand the significant risks they're introducing, or fail to understand the issue. Such members can easily monopolize discussion to the point that the risk extends indefinitely. And when they do, others no doubt feel urgency created by this prolonged "discussion" - even if it's simply repeating points that have been discussed ad nauseum for months or even years - and thus force ballots forward.

The simple answer is the Forum cannot accomplish any further work until we resolve these issues. This was something that Google had discussed with Kirk, Dean, and Ben for over half a year now - so these concerns are by no means new, and have certainly reached a head now that the concerns are being ignored.

The CAB Forum is a consensus group, and seems to have managed OK thusfar
on the basis of expecting people to act reasonably, because they
generally have. If you have so little trust in your fellow Forum members
that you think that any tiny chink in the armour will be ruthlessly
exploited (and that I, Jody and Curt will gleefully go along with it)
then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Gerv, I hope you realize the distinction between personal feelings and trust and legal risk. If you don't, I think it shows little faith in me as well :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161108/d42aed65/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list