[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period
vfournier at apple.com
Mon Dec 11 12:01:05 MST 2017
Hi Ryan and all,
While I can appreciate your concerns, this process and these descriptions seem to work in W3C without the chaos and uncertainty you’ve described below. Please see my additional comments below.
Senior Standards Counsel
✉︎ vmf at apple.com
Could you explain how you imagine this process working? I think it's
presently underspecified, highlighting Gerv's concerns.
Here's just a small sample of realistic problems that would emerge:
1) At what point can such Editorial Changes be proposed? During discussion
or during voting?
**VMF: During discussion. This is easy enough to specify in the ballot language. Once the ballot goes to a vote, no changes can be made. If members don’t like the ballot at this point, they should vote NO.
2) At what point are objections raised? What happens if votes were based on
text that was Editorial, objections were raised that they're not Editorial,
and in the retrospective analysis of the original language, the votes
**VMF: This should not happen given the definition of “Editorial Changes.” This should really just be fixing typos, incorrect section references, incorrect urls, and other non-substantive changes. Is there something in the proposed definitions from W3C that makes you think the permitted changes could be substantive? If so, please let us know which language gives you pause, and we can modify that language to address your concerns. If something is changed that a member thinks should not have been changed, the member should vote NO on the ballot.
Working through a simple analysis of timelines and identifying at what
point X can happen and at what point it can no longer happen would do a
great service in identifying further deficiencies in the proposed language.
**VMF: This is fairly simple. “Editorial Changes” could be made during the discussion period and not during the voting period.
I suspect that if we attempt to solve this problem, it will inevitably end
up looking very similar to our voting procedures, since the design of those
are to allow folks ample time to vote and to avoid confusion as to what is
being voted on. Thus, I question the fundamental value.
**VMF: It is part of the voting process, rather than a separate process.
I appreciate the enthusiasm being applied for what members may see as
'simple' fixes, but as we know with substantive changes in process, these
are hardly that.
**It seems reasonably simple to me. We specify a definition of non-substantive “Editorial Changes” and say they can only be made during the discussion period. If members don’t like the changes made for whatever reason, they can vote NO on the ballot.
Further, I would encourage those proposing the "Editorial Language" to do
so in a separate ballot. I think we'd be reasonably confident to say that
this is not a problem being introduced by this Ballot, therefore, I would
suggest we not attempt to solve it by attaching unnecessarily to this
**VMF: It *is* introduced by this ballot. When you talk about changing a ballot, the obvious questions are (1) when can changes by made, and (2) what changes can be made. It doesn’t make sense to say in one ballot that you can make changes to a ballot, and then wait for a subsequent ballot to answer (1) and (2).
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> +1 ? sounds good to me.
> Gerv ? are you willing to make this change to your draft ballot?
> *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 8, 2017 3:24 PM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <
> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion
> Offering a previously stated suggestion.
> "Editorial changes" (the definitions 1 and 2 from W3C Process Document
> seem reasonable) must be proposed to the public list and clearly identified
> as such. If any voting member objects and considers such change as "not
> editorial", then the formal ballot process shall take place. if no
> objections are raised, then these editorial changes shall be applied along
> with changes approved via the next upcoming ballot.
> Does this make sense?
> On 8/12/2017 9:14 ??, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> Maybe we could state that ?editorial? changes could be made without
> restarting the discussion period. ?Editorial? could be defined something
> like 1 and 2 below (taken from the W3C Process Document):
> 6.2.5 Classes of Changes
> This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
> specification. The first two classes of change are considered editorial
> changes, the latter two substantive changes.
> *1. No changes to text content*
> These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid markup.
> *2. Corrections that do not affect conformance*
> Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as changing
> architectural or interoperability requirements or their implementation.
> Changes which resolve ambiguities in the specification are considered to
> change (by clarification) the implementation requirements and do not fall
> into this class.
> Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative code
> examples where the code clearly conflicts with normative requirements,
> clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos
> or grammatical errors where the change does not change implementation
> requirements. If there is any doubt or dissent as to whether requirements
> are changed, such changes do not fall into this class.
> *3. Corrections that do not add new features*
> These changes *may* affect conformance to the specification. A change
> that affects conformance is one that:
> ? makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents
> become non-conforming according to the new version, or
> ? makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become
> conforming, or
> ? clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
> specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an agent whose
> conformance was once unclear becomes clearly either conforming or
> *4. New features*
> Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.
> Best regards,
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
> ? Apple Inc.
> ? 669-227-9595 <(669)%20227-9595>
> ?? vmf at apple.com
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> Gerv, this started as your ballot, so it's up to you - do you want to
> allow such minor edits without restarting the discussion period, or not?
> If yes, you need to put defining / permissive language in the ballot. I
> won't be comfortable if we have no written permission for edits, but then
> allow them informally later when ballots have errors - it needs to be in
> the ballot.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org <gerv at mozilla.org>]
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:23 PM
> To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period
> On 08/12/17 18:17, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> Just putting the question to you in the abstract ? do you think we
> should have to restart a seven day discussion just to correct an
> obvious typo?
> Let us say the answer to that question is "no". Then the obvious next
> question is: "how do you, the proponent of this idea, define 'obvious typo'
> in a way which does not open the door to substantive changes, or changes
> which people would argue about the substantiveness of, and without
> inventing Yet Another Voting/Polling Mechanism"?
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Subject: Digest Footer
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
End of Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 21
More information about the Public