[cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Dec 6 19:21:10 MST 2017


I agree with Ryan’s concerns below. 

Virginia Fournier
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse iTypos

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 3:58 PM, public-request at cabforum.org wrote:
> 
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
>    public at cabforum.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    public-request at cabforum.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    public-owner at cabforum.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period
>      Process (Kirk Hall)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:58:48 +0000
> From: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
>    Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion
>    Period Process
> Message-ID:
>    <7b2f0d8dcda5441d8c7ab41ab1262dd6 at PMSPEX04.corporate.datacard.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> My thinking was that the phrase we choose would itself indicate that corrections could only be made if they didn?t present any substantive issues.  How would you phrase that concept so it was clear to all?
> 
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:27 PM
> To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process
> 
> Do you have a more concrete proposal for how that would look that addresses the issues that have been repeatedly raised over the years with such proposals?
> 
> As we've seen in past conversations, including Ballot 190, both typographical and numbering corrections have had profound normative impact. Discussions about structures organized such as "1 and 2 and 3" (within lists) being unclear as to whether they're "(1 and 2) or 3" or "1 and (2 or 3)"
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> We will also endorse.
> 
> Gerv, do you want to allow ?minor typographical and numbering corrections? without restarting the 7 day discussion period?
> 
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:54 AM
> To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process
> 
> I?ll endorse this one.
> 
> I still have some concerns about forcing a 7 day wait might cause problems if a new version of the ballot simply has a spelling correction or minor wording clarification.  We can see if it?s actually a problem in practice if I?m the only one who feels that way.
> 
> But the most important thing is removing the automatic start of voting when we may or may not be ready.  And I think that would be a great improvement.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:00 AM
> To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process
> 
> 
> [Here's a repost of my proposed text to fix the issue that Tim has helpfully recently re-raised.]
> 
> Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process
> 
> Purpose of Ballot: The current voting procedures specify a "period of discussion", the duration of which is fixed before the ballot process begins. This ballot updates that to instead have the period of discussion be more flexible, to avoid it expiring while discussion is ongoing and thereby voting on a sub-optimal ballot.
> 
> The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and endorsed by XXX of XXX and XXX of XXX:
> 
> -- MOTION BEGINS --
> 
> This ballot modifies the CAB Forum Bylaws.
> 
> In Section 2.3(c), replace the text:
> 
> "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."
> 
> with:
> 
> "The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven calendar days before votes are cast. At any time, a new version of the ballot (marked with a distinguishing version number) may be posted by the proposer in the same manner as the original. Once no new version of the ballot has been posted for seven calendar days, the proposer may end the discussion period and start the voting period by reposting the final version of the ballot and clearly indicating that voting is to begin, along with the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for the voting period. The ballot automatically fails if 21 calendar days elapse since the proposer last posted a version of the ballot and the voting period has not been started."
> 
> Similarly, in Section 2.4(b), replace the text:
> 
> "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start and end dates of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot."
> 
> with:
> 
> "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at least seven days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start date of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot. The discussion period shall end and the voting period shall commence also according to the procedure specified in Section 2.3(c)."
> 
> In Section 2.3(d) of the CAB Forum Bylaws, replace the text:
> 
> "Upon completion of the discussion period, Members shall have"
> 
> with:
> 
> "Upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have"
> 
> Similarly, in Section 2.4(c), replace the text:
> 
> "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon completion of such discussion period, Members shall have"
> 
> with:
> 
> "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have"
> 
> -- MOTION ENDS --
> 
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
> 
> 
> Start time (22:00 UTC)
> 
> 
> End time (22:00 UTC)
> 
> 
> Discussion (7 to 14 days)
> 
> 
> XXX
> 
> 
> XXX
> 
> 
> Vote for approval (7 days)
> 
> 
> XXX
> 
> 
> XXX
> 
> 
> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/
> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171206/1474039a/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11
> **************************************


More information about the Public mailing list