[Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Thu Sep 13 06:33:02 MST 2018
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.
From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; servercert-wg at cabforum.org
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2
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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Servercert-wg