You are absolutely right, Virginia.
However, I think any CA that assumes a guideline change will happen and
actually implements it before the change is finally approved (by expiration of
a Review Period with no Exclusion Notices) is being foolish… I guess the
temptation will be there because we are adding an extra 30 day waiting period
before CAs know that a successful straw vote is actually the final vote of
But I’m guessing we will not get Exclusion Notices in 95%+ of ballots, so it’s
probably worth eliminating the need for a second vote for approval after the
expiration of the Review Period where no Exclusion Notices were filed.
From: vfourn...@apple.com [mailto:vfourn...@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org>; Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrust.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2
Hi Gerv and Kirk,
This approach would not, however, eliminate the risk of IPR issues associated
with implementing guidelines before the review period is closed without any
Exclusion Notices being filed. Each member would need to consult with their
own counsel to determine how comfortable they are with assuming that risk.
Senior Standards Counsel
On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Gervase Markham
On 11/10/16 23:48, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Of course, the straw poll is like a real vote today, in that people
> are voting before they know whether or not there will be any Exclusion
> Notices. I suppose we could say the straw poll automatically becomes
> the real vote if (and only if) there are no Exclusion Notices filed
> during the subsequent 30/60 day Review period
> - that would cut the minimum time period from 51 days to 44 days. If
> any Exclusion Notices are filed, the straw vote is discarded and we go
> to a PAG, new discussion and straw vote, new Review Period, etc.
That's a great idea; but then I would think so, because it basically has the
same effect as what I proposed ;-)
Public mailing list