[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Dec 11 19:06:49 UTC 2017

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 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
> ballot.
> **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).

I think there's some confusion - the ballot (Ballot 216) does not specify
changes can be made. You can read this in

I think we're in violent agreement that you cannot and should not specify
changes can be made without specifying how and when those changes can be
made :) Kirk was requesting the ballot to specify "changes can be made",
hence the subsequent discussion - but those were not incorporated into the
ballot put forward.

As it stands, I think we remain concerned with changes in the discussion
period, given both the past (lack of) precedent on this issue, and the past
precedent of repeatedly trying to make changes that do harm, rather than
good. I already highlighted how using votes as the attempt to object to
such changes is detrimental to the productivity of the Forum and the
ability to gather feedback from the broader community, values which we've
traditionally held in high esteem. It seems that we can revisit this
if/when proponents can show it having been an issue, but meanwhile, the
ability to accidentally or intentionally do harm to ballots and the process
far outweighs the (as of yet) non-existent cost.

Those changes that have been desired in the past have been normative, not
editorial, and so I suspect members promoting flexibility may be conflating
the two - which certainly was a problem in those past discussions, and why
I do not think this necessarily helps.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171211/5f521c6c/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list