[cabfpub] ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)

[philliph at comodo.com]

I am finding the arguments here rather surprising.

When counting an election, the questions at issue are always

1) Is the person permitted to cast a ballot
2) What was their intent

So to dismiss ‘intent’ as irrelevant is off the point, to say the least.

In this case we have the concern that there is an audit log so that the votes are public. Which is of course a reasonable requirement. But one that is surely adequately met by post ballot publication.





> On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:11 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> On 17/04/17 02:16, Eric Mill via Public wrote:
>> I don't think Microsoft cast its vote correctly. Microsoft is aware of
>> how the CA/Browser Forum list works, and should have been able to cast a
>> vote from a subscribed member address before the deadline. I think this
>> obligation is especially apparent when their vote is likely to be a
>> tiebreaker.
> 
> It is also worth noting that Gordon will have had a response from the
> mailing list software that told him his posting was either rejected or
> held for moderation (depending on how the list is configured) because he
> was not a subscriber. I would say that he was responsible for acting on
> that message.
> 
>> I'm sure it was a good faith error, but it would not be a good precedent
>> for votes to be counted which were only distributed to and reforwarded
>> by the Chair (or any other member).
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public