[cabfpub] Elections

[Tim Hollebeek]

Or we could just avoid the problem by not creating it in the first place.

 

Speaking as someone who attended most of the governance reform calls, if we
learned one thing from governance reform, it's that simpler is better, and
gets us to consensus faster.

 

-Tim

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:11 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Elections

 

Tim - if future WGs are started mid-year, it would be easy to sync up the
initial officer terms to the "standard" officer terms of the Forum and
existing WGs - you just have either begin with a "short term" initial term
(for example, "The initial term of the S/MIME WG Chair shall run from May
15, 2019 to Oct. 31, 2019.  Thereafter, terms of officers of the S/MIME WG
shall run from November 1 of the election year through October 31 two years
later."  Or the initial term can be a "long term" - "The initial term of the
S/MIME WG Chair shall run from September 10, 2019 to Oct. 31, 2021.
Thereafter, terms of officers of the S/MIME WG shall run from November 1 of
the election year through October 31 two years later."  Each new WG would
have control of the initial term for officers, and can make it sync up to a
standard two year term for all officers.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek
via Public
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:01 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org
<mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Elections

 

 

As a reminder, we ended up with the current SCWG chairs and election rules
because we were unable to reach agreement on the election rules.  So we
punted it to the SCWG to handle once it was formed, to avoid blocking
progress on getting governance reform passed.  I don't see a good reason to
delay resolving those issues and having elections now that the SCWG exists.

 

I am extremely concerned that one of the proposals involves changes to the
election procedures at the Forum level.  I see no compelling reason why that
is necessary, and why the current terms and rules should not be left alone.
Attempting to modify the Forum elections as well will add complexity and
controversy with no added benefit.  We should focus on what the SCWG rules
should be, and agree sustainable long-term rules and a good precedents for
new working groups instead of basing proposals on short term considerations.
For example, it probably will not be possible for the WG elections to be in
sync with the main forum, if only because the S/MIME working group, which is
likely to exist very soon, won't exist soon enough to have elections in sync
with the main Forum.

 

-Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180717/454d334e/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180717/454d334e/attachment-0003.p7s>