[cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when discussion ends, and not before

Tue Dec 5 13:26:12 MST 2017

I’m actually extremely supportive of this line of reasoning.  That’s why this ballot actually LENGTHENS the discussion period for all ballots.  I agree that “fix it later” is horrible, and that it is better to take up to 30 days to get it right (I’d even support lengthening that number if people want to do so).  It’s the arbitrariness of “voting starts immediately after seven days, regardless of where the discussion has gone” that drives those bad decisions.  I want to fix the perverse incentive that puts us in those bad situations.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:19 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when discussion ends, and not before

There have been more cases of bugs being introduced through changes than there have been of typographical errors. There's also been the repeated suggestion to "let it pass, and fix it afterwards" - which has also shown to be a regular poison pill for discussion and deferring solving real problems.

To the extent the Forum provides a valuable venue to deconflict requirements between various browser programs, it would seem avoiding conflicts and forced 'no votes', particularly from browsers, would be better. Otherwise, I can easily see the Baseline Requirements being less valuable as input into Browser requirements or the accepted audit criteria if unnecessary or controversial changes are rushed in.

I can understand the argument against would be that such changes could delay much needed fixes that are time sensitive. But we've also seen those 'much needed' fixes themselves are the result of inadequate review and last minute changes, which yet again argues for a thoughtful deliberation as to what will become the common requirement.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > wrote:

Thanks for the two editorial comments; they are helpful and I will include them.

My position remains the same as it was in the previous thread: if you believe you need more time to understand the ballot, you are free to vote no.  But people don’t need seven days to analyze an effective date that was accidentally omitted.  There have been other similar cases over the last few years.

I intentionally left gaining consensus up to the proposer, and they may do so by any means they feel is appropriate.  This may include waiting seven days after making complex changes, to give people time to analyze them.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:03 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when discussion ends, and not before

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Now that I have a bit more time, I’d like to propose a ballot that we discussed with Gerv after the recent CAA voting snafu.  The current bylaws require the proposer to predict in advance how long the discussion period will be.  We’ve had a few cases where we’ve had to choose between withdrawing a ballot and starting over (with a week delay …) and going forward with an imperfect ballot.  We should have the time and flexibility to get ballot right, even if a flaw is noticed late in the discussion period.  I included Gerv’s proposal to sunset abandoned ballots.

While I was modifying the voting rules, I decided to make it clear that the ballot can be modified in response to concerns identified during the discussion period.  We’ve always operated that way, so I thought I’d make it clear in the bylaws.

The change is in github here:

https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...timfromdigicert:patch-1

-(c) A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be published for discussion and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast. The proposer of the ballot will designate the length of the discussion period, and each ballot shall clearly state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for both the discussion period and the voting period.

+(c) A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be published for discussion and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven calendar days. After seven days, wheneverr the proposer feels the ballot is ready for voting, he shall repost the ballot, incorporating any changes based on feedback from the discussion period. However, if 30 days elapse from the beginning of the discussion period without voting having started, the ballot will be considered withdrawn. The ballot shall clearly state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for the voting period.

Comments?  Endorsers?

There's a typo -> wheneverr should be whenever

There's some unnecessary gendered language, "he shall repost" -> "The proposer shall repost"

That said, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of last minute changes to trigger the vote. As captured during the previous discussion, it may make more sense to have changes restart discussion to allow adequate review - especially of the implications of the change. I think the Ballot 190 discussions captured a number of ways in which the attempts to solve the problem kept introducing new problems, especially if the proposer may be misunderstanding the concerns.

I think the end state should be "Members have at least 7 days to review the final ballot and submit feedback"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171205/2d88e730/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171205/2d88e730/attachment-0001.p7s>