[cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Tue Jan 10 10:42:48 UTC 2017

On 09/01/17 20:23, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> 2.3(c) - What occurs, if anything, if two Ballots propose modifications
> to the same text at the same time? 

I think this is the correct solution:

>      c.2) Should we require that the 'more recently proposed' ballot
> include provisions about any existing ballots?

Whether two ballots clash is not necessarily something which can be
determined "programmatically" - it requires humans.

>   1) Assume the Chair is on vacation again. For purposes of IP Review,
> does the Period begin on that second business day, or does it begin when
> the chair returns?

Perhaps we need a general provision in the Bylaws that the Chair may
delegate such functions to the Vice-Chair if they are going to be absent
at the critical moment. And/or, we could slacken off the deadlines here;
one/two business days seems very quick indeed as a maximum bound. An
efficient chair would normally meet such a bound, but there seems little
need to specify it as the max. in all circumstances.

> 2.3(k) - For avoiding any ambiguity, historically the interpretation was
> that a Ballot is "in force" when a new versions of the Guideline are
> made public on the website. Do you believe this section supports that
> interpretation?

We do need to remember that the Forum's guidelines are "binding" via
root programs. So it's not entirely clear what it means for a new set of
Guidelines to be "in force". However, I agree the public publication of
the new version is the milestone we should use if we want to have the
concept, because the guidelines are applied (via root programs) to CAs
who are not members of the Forum.

> 2.3(l)(ii) - How is it determined that the PAG has provided a
> recommendation? Is it through action of the Chair? Through a formal
> Ballot of consensus?

I agree we need to define better procedures for the PAG on this, and I
would propose the PAG has to pass a section-2.2 vote giving a resolution
(one of the six allowed) and supporting data, perhaps in the form of a
report. Perhaps we can also put a six-month time limit on PAGs, after
which they are deemed to have recommended "do not proceed" and the
second vote is held (if the proposer and seconders still want it)?


More information about the Public mailing list