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

[Kirk Hall]

Given the other issues we are encountering, perhaps we should consider a separate provision with an “emergency clause” where a ballot goes into effect on the final date of voting (before the Review Period) – but this would need a higher yes vote, like 80% of voting CAs and 2/3 of voting browsers.  There would be an IP danger during the subsequent Review Period (each CA proceeds at its own risk), but at least we wouldn’t have to wait 30 days from a successful vote for a change to the BRs to become effective.

Gerv – would you support that concept?  Most legislatures have similar provisions when they need a new law to take effect immediately.

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews [mailto:jsha at letsencrypt.org]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:14 AM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Fixing our voting process, again

This seems like a good change.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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/20170925/4721d3ac/attachment-0003.html>