[cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

Fri Dec 8 16:19:35 UTC 2017

I can't recall that having happened. Do you recall specifics?

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> In the past, we have let ballot authors correct typos - such as
> "certificaet" to "certificate".  Would that no longer be allowed (meaning,
> would that type of editing to a ballot require the restart of a new seven
> day discussion period)?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia
> Fournier via Public
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:21 PM
> To: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11
>
> 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/at
> > tachment.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
> > **************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171208/3dee8633/attachment-0003.html>