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

[Kirk Hall]

I also think that the ballot proponents can add a provision to the repeat Ballot 201 that the results of Ballot 198 are invalid, null, and void.  That would make the consensus of the Forum clear.  Ben/Jeremy?

And yes, we should consider further Bylaws changes to deal with questions like this on a systematic basis.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:27 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot 198 - .Onion Revisions

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<mailto: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<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<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto: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<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170518/9943ff9b/attachment-0003.html>