[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Wayne Thayer wthayer at mozilla.com
Wed May 23 09:47:48 MST 2018


On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:21 AM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> People fought pretty hard for the ability to post ballots without
> redlines; this isn’t the first by far.  I actually opposed that and lost.
>
>
>
>
I looked at the last handful of ballots. All of them (224, 223, 220, 219,
and 218) included redlines.
>

I strongly encourage attachment of redlines, and this is the first time I
> haven’t, unfortunately due to time constraints.  I try to do it whenever
> possible.
>
>
>
>
It's more than encouraged - the bylaws require redlines.
>

I believe if you look at the definitions, a Draft Guideline Ballot is the
> ballot posted by the chair after voting ends as part of the IPR process.
> That’s my recollection.
>
>
>
>
The bylaws contain no definition of "Draft Guideline Ballot". Bylaws
section 2.3 begins by stating "The following rules will apply to all
ballots, including Draft Guideline Ballots...", so I think you are mistaken.
>

-Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:40 PM
> *To:* Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <
> tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221:
> Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements
>
>
>
> Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***If the Draft Guideline Ballot is
> proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, *such ballot will include a
> redline or comparison* showing the set of changes from the Final
> Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and
> need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines.  Such redline or
> comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they
> exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into
> consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as
> provided in Section 2.4(j) below.”
>
>
>
> I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the
> ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first
> to see the context and what was changed.
>
>
>
> Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think?  Is the form of Ballot 221
> compliant with the Bylaws?  Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have
> a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing
> the changes from the current NetSec Requirements?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180523/19d287d0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Public mailing list