[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot 198 - .Onion Revisions

[Ryan Sleevi]

Yes Kirk, your understanding is correct. What Geoff and Gerv have offered
is consistent with what I proposed as "Option 3"

I made the following suggestions on how to resolve this:

> 3) The ballot is invalid (due to the inconsistency)
>   - In this case, we're saying the ballot is null because of the mismatch
>   - Supporting Argument: The Bylaws in 2.3(a) indicate that a Draft
> Guideline Ballot proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline will include a
> redline or comparison, and that such redline or comparison be made against
> the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time the ballot is
> proposed. Jeremy's redline was not against that section, ergo, was not a
> valid ballot.
>   - Solution Suggestion: Hold a ballot to agree on this interpretation for
> this specific ballot
>   - Solution Suggestion p2: Adopt it fixed


It sounds like there's at least sufficient agreement here to endorse a
ballot, which would unambiguously resolve any questions of process for this
or the future :)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> Geoff and Gerv - I was going to accept Ballot 198 as proposed in the text
> of Jeremy's May 3 email that starts "The ballot is now in voting".  But I
> guess earlier versions of the ballot during the discussion period had
> language that was different from the language in the attached pdf - I see
> that is true for Jeremy's email dated April 24.
>
> Bylaw 2.3(a) says in part "If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a
> Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or
> comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s)
> intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline ***."  So that implies the
> redline version is part of the ballot, along with stated text in the email
> message containing the ballot.  Here, they were not the same.
>
> So is your opinion that we should record the result of Ballot 198 as
> "Invalid" or "Failed"?  That probably makes sense, and I can withdraw the
> Review Notice.
>
> What do others think about how we should mark the status of Ballot 198?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase
> Markham via Public
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:17 AM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot
> 198 - .Onion Revisions
>
> On 16/05/17 21:39, Geoff Keating via Public wrote:
> > The ‘ballot’ is the thing that includes the ‘redline or comparison’,
> > bylaws section 2.3(a).  If it doesn’t have one of those, it’s not a
> > ballot.  So the redline is definitely part of the ballot and if
> > there’s some confusion it can be consulted to make it clear what
> > change was voted on.
> >
> > In addition, the redline has to be against a specific version of the
> > guidelines.  If that wasn’t done properly, to the point where there’s
> > a question as to what the ballot means or where votes might have been
> > made based on the incorrect information, then I’d think the ballot
> > would be invalid.
>
> I think this is the best interpretationof the bylaws.
>
> Gerv
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170518/9ae320f1/attachment.html>