[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Fixing our voting process, again

[Kirk Hall]

Yes, good idea.  If no movement to voting after 21 days, the ballot dies?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Fixing our voting process, again

On 21/09/17 01:54, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> Technically, the Discussion period ended at 22:00 UTC today (which was
> 3:00 pm Pacific Time).  Josh, as the Proposer of the Ballot, accepted 
> Gerv and Tim’s email suggestion as to a 3-month transition period, but 
> this acceptance occurred at 5:05 pm Pacific Time, two hours after the 
> end of the discussion period.  Also, we don’t have specific amendment 
> language to consider, only a concept.

<sigh> What an incompetent shower this makes the lot of us all look, eh :-( Yet another ballot-related tangle for the CAB Forum to sort out.

How about we change the ballot process slightly so that there is a discussion period of a _minimum_ of 7 days (and, to prevent submarine ballots, you could say a maximum of 21), and that after at least 7 days have elapsed, the proposer has to then take a positive affirmative step to move the ballot from discussion to voting? I.e. they have to kick off the voting period themselves?

That would have prevented this SNAFU, and any others where we find we are desperately trying to agree a small amendment to ballot language before the 7-day guillotine cuts in and freezes the ballot.

Anyone think this is a good idea?

Gerv