[cabfpub] Adjusting the voting process

[Virginia Fournier]

Hello Gerv and all,

When we revamped the voting process, we knew there would be changes over time to smooth it out and make it more efficient.  So we should be open to changes that would improve the process.

In response to Gerv’s suggestions, I’m not sure what the "21-day period" is.  Also, why would the ballot die rather than moving to the voting period?

There’s nothing in the process that says the ballot cannot be amended during the discussion period, but I think it’s worth clarifying this.  Also, the ballot should not have to start completely over if it is amended - this would not render the process faster or more efficient.  At the end of the formal discussion period, the ballot would go to the voting period and, if members don’t like it, they should vote no and the ballot will not pass.  This is the advantage of having a pre-ballot discussion period to untangle any major issues before you get to the formal discussion period.  That way, there should only be minor changes during the formal discussion period.

What is a gentleman’s arrangement?

thanks,

Virginia
------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:54:13 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
	Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Fixing our voting process, again
Message-ID: <6d8b3b3d-db1a-028b-9baf-897243e257d6 at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 25/09/17 16:48, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Yes, good idea.  If no movement to voting after 21 days, the ballot dies?

Yes. It would require tweaks in a few places, including to our template
(because the entire timeline would not be knowable at the beginning) but
I still think it's an improvement.

> Also, we make clear that the ballot can be amended during the
> discussion period (and must be reposted with amendments for clarity)?
> That's not explicit today.

Yes, we could do that too. Do we want to restart the "min 7 days" each
time this happens, or do we want to continue with the gentleman's
arrangement of not sliding massive changes in just under the wire?

Gerv