[cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2

Fri Sep 14 07:35:32 UTC 2018

Following-up on these comments, here is a proposed red-lined version 
that fixes the ETSI references.

Dimitris.

On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Public wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in 
> all CABF documents. These TSs have not been updated for years, they 
> don´t reflect the current requirements of the CABF.
>
> Regards
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *De:* Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] en nombre de 
> Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert-wg at cabforum.org]
> *Enviado:* jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46
> *Para:* Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; Ryan 
> Sleevi; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> As discussed on the Validation WG call, this unfortunately is probably 
> not going to be possible for this particular ballot.  Ben did a lot of 
> work to get the current redlined document to accurately reflect what 
> the Bylaws were intended to be at this point.
>
> In the attached version 3, I’ve corrected a typo that was left behind 
> after I reverted the ETSI changes.  I would urge a few people to take 
> a close look at it and make sure there are no additional errors …
>
> I’ll aim to update the ballot (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a 
> few people that it looks good based on analysis that is independent of 
> mine and Ben’s.
>
> -Tim
>
> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Tim 
> Hollebeek via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33 AM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> I’m highly sympathetic to that, especially with a document as 
> important as the Bylaws.  I’ve had the same concern as well as I look 
> through Ben’s redline.  After looking at it closer on the plane last 
> night, I have some concerns about what appear to be some changes to 
> cross-references that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re needed.
>
> I will also note that I have previously pointed out that according to 
> the Bylaws, redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any way, 
> shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state they are ignored for the 
> purposed of updating the requirements.  Yet everyone seems to want to 
> review the redlines, not the ballot text.  As I’ve pointed out several 
> times, creating an additional representation of the changes that is 
> required but cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.
>
> This is really, really silly, and I wish people were more vocal and 
> active in finding a solution to it that works for everyone.  And no, I 
> don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should be used to 
> produce redlines.
>
> Each ballot should have one and only one official representation of 
> the proposed changes, and no alternative unofficial changes should be 
> required.  I’ve circulated several proposals, but I really don’t care 
> about the details, as long as the problem is solved.
>
> In this case, I think I’m going to look and see if the Ballot Text 
> from 216 applies cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline 
> based on that.
>
> -Tim
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com 
> <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org 
> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
>
> Tim,
>
> I believe there had been a previous suggestion to provide this as a 
> clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt Document X". Can you clarify that?
>
> By presenting it as you have, it's going to create more work to even 
> make sure that the formatting of the document - claiming to be a 
> redline - actually matches to the last canonical version, and that the 
> changes you've highlighted in red, are, well the changes to be made.
>
> I hope you can understand why that's more difficult, because it 
> requires wholesale comparison rather than taking the previous version 
> and showing how it would be corrected.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg 
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
>     Ballot FORUM-4 v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance
>     Reform Ballot 206
>
>     Purpose of Ballot
>
>     The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot
>     numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two
>     years to draft.
>
>     The changes to the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended to be
>     included in the Governance Reform ballot, but were accidentally
>     not included.
>
>     The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
>     discussion period changes that were approved by the members but
>     then accidentally overwritten.
>
>     The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
>     DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick
>     Dadashov of SSC.
>
>     --- MOTION BEGINS ---
>
>     This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version
>     1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.
>
>     --- MOTION ENDS ---
>
>     The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
>     Discussion (7 days)
>
>     Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
>     End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
>     Vote for approval (7 days)
>
>     Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
>     End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Servercert-wg mailing list
>     Servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>     http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> 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/20180914/ae23d736/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot v3-with-ETSI-update.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 57037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/ae23d736/attachment-0003.docx>