[cabfpub] Notice of Review Period - Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:52 AM, philliph at comodo.com <philliph at comodo.com>
wrote:
>
> Your mode of argument is really unhelpful.
>

Because I'm asking that you support your arguments with data from the
Bylaws, and to refute the (many) points of demonstrable consistency within
the Bylaws that disagree with the interpretation Kirk and you are proposing?

How else is there to be a meaningful argument? This isn't a question of
opinion or interpretation. It's quite clear cut. Those arguing that it's
not clear-cut are only doing so by selectively ignoring all other evidence
that contradicts their viewpoint. There has been no response to the many
places in which our existing Bylaws give clarity and disambiguate the
position here - that it was not posted to the mailing list, that voting did
not occur via the mailing list.

We can continue on the other thread, but I think that if you wish to
advance the position you're taking, both you and Kirk owe it to folks to
make a meaningful response to the concerns. If you or Kirk find it
difficult to participate in the broader threads, I would be happy to
summarize for you all of the ways in which the interpretation is
unambiguously not valid, according to our existing Bylaws.


> The fact that you don’t agree with a proposition you are arguing against
> does not mean that your opponent has failed to 'meaningfully offer any
> justification’.
>

I agree. And while that's a useful strawman to poke at, that's not my
point, and somewhat disingenous to suggest it is. Multiple people have
pointed out within our Bylaws that this interpretation lacks substance. The
only arguments, to date, have been by selectively taking a single sentence,
ignoring both its surrounding paragraph and the document at large's usage
of that word, or to argue on the basis of intent, despite there being a
clear and plain reading, also supported by the historic data, that the
intent was not as has been suggested.

The fact that you agree with a proposition that failed does not mean it's
appropriate to redefine the rules of voting in a way that clearly
contradict with our Bylaws, nor to introduce a new method of dispute
resolution (the doodle poll), which entirely disregards our Bylaws and our
precedent, but favors the Chair's (and his employer's) position.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/eb9128d0/attachment-0003.html>