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

[Kirk Hall]

Agreed on your first point - CAs "MAY" use a change during the 30 day IP Review period, not "MUST".

I don't think I agree that a Ballot does not become effective until it is published in a new version of the BRs.  Bylaw 2.3(h) says " If no Exclusion Notices are filed during the Review Period with respect to a Draft Guideline Ballot, then the results of the Initial Vote are automatically deemed to be final and approved, and Draft Guidelines then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance Guidelines, as
designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot."  Subsection (h) then goes on to direct the Chair to update the Website of the Final Guidelines / Maintenance Guidelines within 10 days thereafter, but that is not a condition of the ballot being "final and approved".  Subsection (h) does not even specify how the Chair is to "update the Website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines" - it could be simply by posting the ballot and saying it was approved - but clearly posting an updated version of the BRs is more efficient and preferable.

(h) If no Exclusion Notices are filed during the Review Period with respect to a Draft Guideline
Ballot, then the results of the Initial Vote are automatically deemed to be final and approved,
and Draft Guidelines then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance Guidelines, as
designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The Chair will notify both the Member Mail List and
the Public Mail List of the final approval within 3 business days, as well as update the Public
Website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines within 10 business days of the
close of the Review Period.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 6:57 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha at letsencrypt.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Fixing our voting process, again

On 25/09/17 21:42, Kirk Hall wrote:
> 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.

We cannot force CAs to take on IP risk.

So there's a difference between a CA MAY do something during the IP period, and a CA MUST do something during the IP period. The latter, I don't think we can do. The former is more plausible. It would not need a different threshold, because it would just be permitting another option.
But I still think it's problematic because, as Ryan says, things only go into effect when they are in a published version of the BRs, and that happens at the end of IP review. If we allowed this, we could have version 1.6.4 coming into effect before 1.6.3 - except that 1.6.4 would contain the changes from 1.6.3, so ????.

Gerv