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

Tim Hollebeek tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Mon Dec 11 19:11:52 UTC 2017

At some point someone needs to explain why CAB Forum is special, given that the ability to make editorial changes is uncontroversial in virtually every standards forum in existence.


I’m still scratching my head as to why it takes 7 days to verify a spelling correction.




From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 12:07 PM
To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period




On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto: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

**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 https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-December/012552.html


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/20171211/9be75210/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171211/9be75210/attachment-0003.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list