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

[Tim Hollebeek]

I liked the original suggestions from you and Gerv.  This was clearly a case where a little bit of extra time would have removed the need to completely restart the process and wait another seven days.  We’ve had the same problem before and it has caused similar problems.

It also solves the problem we occasionally have where it is not clear based on the discussion what exactly is being voted on, whether an amendment was accepted, etc.  If it is the proposer’s responsibility to start the voting period, they should also be responsible for posting the ballot text to be voted on (either the original, or as amended in response to discussion).

I’ve mentioned this before, but I also think there should be a default rule in place for effective dates of new compliance requirements, instead of having to hash it out in every ballot.  If a particular issue has its own special circumstances, the ballot can include those, but I don’t think it’d be a bad idea to say something like: “CAs MAY comply with new requirements as soon a ballot passes (subject to IPR risk for first 30 days).  CAs MUST comply with new BR requirements within 90 days of IPR review completion, unless specified otherwise in the ballot.”

-Tim

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 4:42 PM
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha at letsencrypt.org>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Fixing our voting process, again

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<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto: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<https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=t-rJ2XzRKM9ECG4xeDvQ5f08Mj6fCkbA4FAenmUSnQ&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum%2eorg%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fpublic>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170925/62067998/attachment-0003.html>