[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)
jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Tue Apr 18 15:06:30 MST 2017
I cut a lot to make the response readable. Hopefully not too much to follow. Apologies if I did.
My definitions are probably not the best and certainly not conclusive (and, ultimately, does not matter with respect to the outcome of 194). However, getting consensus on the meaning would help solve future issues.
The bylaws use four terms that have similar meanings:
1. Sent – Using the CAB Forum’s public mailing list in the “TO: “ of an email (Phil’s interpretation)
2. Submit – Requires permission in addition to sending messages to the mailing list (Virginia’s definition)
3. Post – Delivery of the message to the mailing list
4. Distribute – Sent to subscribers of the mailing list
Although many ballots have poor wording (my own included), I don’t think it materially affects these particular definitions. The bylaws were created by the members’ lawyers so I assume a little more care was taken to the wording than most of the technical ballots, which are a mash-up of various drafter specifications (like ballot 169 – lots of authors throwing technical requirements in a pot).
As far as a coordinate block of the mailing list, we have a similar problem now. If the mailing list “goes down” (say through a sustained attack) a member can effectively block votes made after a certain date. I think both are risks, but we choose what is acceptable. I’m very happy to change the wording to specify something like “Members must post votes to the mailing list within the ballot period” to clarify though.
>> So you believe voting can happen after the conclusion of the Ballot?
No. Voting must happen during the ballot period. However, the vote may not be received by members until after the ballot period (such as if the mail server fails for some reason). In this particular case, Microsoft’s vote was clearly not distributed to the mailing list during the ballot period. Similarly, I don’t think there is a dispute it was “sent”. However, I don’t know whether it was “submitted” or “posted”.
>> You're now seeming to argue that "sent", "post", "distribute", and "via" all represent distinct, and unrelated events. How do you see the process working?
I think we should just agree on a meaning by ballot and consolidate on one or two terms. Maybe “Distribute” and “Submit”?
>>>For example, Section 2.3 states "The Chair will initiate the Review Period by sending the Review Notice to both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List."
>>> Why not? That is, how do you conclude that they are different definitions, if you've not articulated those definitions.
I haven’t articulated the definition because I don’t know what it is. If there were clear definitions, this wouldn’t be a dispute. However, you don’t use the same term to mean two different things in legal docs. This is a legal doc.
"Forum Members and Interested Parties may post to the Public Mail List in compliance with these Bylaws. "
"Anyone else is allowed to subscribe to and receive messages posted to the Public Mail List, which may be crawled and indexed by Internet search engines. "
Public Mail List: The public email list-serv currently located at public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> maintained by the Forum for communications by and among Members and Interested Parties. The Public Mail List may be read by Other Parties, but Other Parties may not post to the Public Mail List.
>>> If we accept your definition that sent and distributed are distinct, must we also accept that Gordon's vote, by not being posted to the Public Mail List due to lack of permissions, means that he was an Other Party at the time of posting, and not a Member?
Thanks for sending over the references. However, the language doesn’t specify that only other parties are prohibited from posting to the public mailing list or that all members have write access to the public list.
>>> And your conclusion that it cannot mean the same is because it's a different word, and two words cannot mean the same thing, correct?
Yes, with a caveat. I’m willing to accept they mean the same thing if that is what the historical context shows but am bothered that we potentially used at least four different words to mean the same action.
>> You mean the Bylaws. Perhaps that was a drafting error?
Lol. Yes - I’m not a model citizen.
>>> The drafter was Virginia, and I linked to you the discussion of concerns. Do you still belief that the drafter had a different intent? If the drafter clarified the intent, would you accept that clarification? If not, how would you propose to resolve this ambiguity, if not by Ballot?
I think we should fix the language by ballot.
Thanks. Sorry I missed this message exchange. It’s probably super annoying to have to dig that out again. Unfortunately, I was hoping
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Public