[cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair

[Kirk Hall]

My arguments are found here:

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-September/014069.html

Ryan, you can end this discussion by saying that Google will be the Proposer on the two ballots, Ballot Forum-5 and Ballot SC-5.  Will Google be the Proposer of the two Ballots?

Google didn’t even vote on our last ballot SC8 for SCWG Chair – I’m not sure why you are so interested in this issue.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 8:35 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair

I understand you disagree. Perhaps you can help us understand what you believe supports your position, as Tim has done by pointing out the Bylaws being clear on this, so that we can have a reasoned understanding beyond "Kirk disagrees".

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:31 AM Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Again, I disagree that a Proposer and Endorsers are required for the reasons I stated before – but if there are three Forum members who want to volunteer as the Proposer and the two Endorsers for Ballots Forum-5 and SC-5 (Vice Chair of Forum and SCWG), I will include their names in the ballots.

So far, no one has offered to be a Proposer or Endorser of either ballot.  If we do not receive enough Proposers and Endorsers for the two ballots, we will proceed with the ballots without them.

From: Tim Hollebeek [mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>]
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 7:26 AM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com<mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair

This is correct.  The ballot requirements for endorsers and discussion periods applies to _all_ ballots.  The bylaws are pretty clear on that; it’s even in the title of section 2.3.

The fact that 4.1(c) of the bylaws requires a ballot does not override the usual ballot rules.

I really hate to nitpick about things like this, but I felt I had to point it out.

Also if we could get a second endorser to fix the voting rules after Ballot 216 got accidentally overwritten, that’d be great.  I can write up the ballot over the weekend.

-Tim

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:55 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair

Bylaws section 2.3 ("General Provisions Applicable to all Ballots") says "Any proposed ballot needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed." The language in section 4 describing "confirmation ballots" and "election ballots" appears to fall under this requirement.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
DigiCert has not specified the concerns it has with the form of ballot.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 3:14 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair

Doesn't this ballot have the same issues with compliance to our Bylaws that DigiCert noted? That is, consistency with Section 2.3 of the Bylaws?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:17 PM Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Ballot SC5:  Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair – Term Nov. 1, 2018 – Oct. 31, 2020


-Motion begins-

In accordance with Bylaw 4.1(c), Wayne Thayer is hereby elected Vice Chair of the Server Certificate Working Group for a term commencing on November 1, 2018 and continuing through October 31, 2020.

-Motion ends-


The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Votes should be either “Yes” or “No”, and should be sent to the Public list.

Voting period: (7 days)

Start Time: Thursday, September 6 at 11:00 am Eastern Time

End Time: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 11:00 am Eastern Time

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
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/20180907/81b59e08/attachment-0003.html>