Hi Virginia,

This is looking really good - again, thank you for your continued hard
work. I only have a few minor comments.

On 13/01/17 00:09, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> Based on comments received from Kirk, Gerv and Ryan, here is an updated
> draft of Ballot 183.  Please let me know if you have additional specific
> comments (i.e., proposed language changes).

* In 2.2 f), you have changed "adopted" to "approved". Given that the
notion of "approval" has a special meaning in the IPR Policy, and AIUI
we want it to mean the point _after_ the IPR review finishes (assuming
no disclosures), could this change cause confusion?

* In 2.3 b), you seem to be repeated what is stated in 2.2 c). As 2.2
now applies to all kinds of ballot, is 2.3 b) now redundant?

* Same query applies to 2.3 c) and 2.2 d), except that 2.3 c) has an
extra sentence which would need moving to 2.2 d) before the duplication
was resolved.

* The bit in 2.3 h) about notifying the public mailing list and updating
the website should probably be in 2.2 and apply to all ballots, because
the website needs updating if we modify the Bylaws, or for some other
types of change (and the website tends to have a record of all ballots
anyway). You might add an "as appropriate" if you don't want to make the
requirement absolute.

* 2.3 i) ii) A) and B) are passive - "If no changes have been made". I
think we all understand that the proposer and endorsers have the right
to decide whether the motion is changed or not, but the passive makes
this a bit obscure (people might think the PAG has this ability).
Perhaps we should change to "If the proposer makes no changes..." in A)
and "If the proposer makes any changes..." in B).

* The new part 3) of the ballot, titled "Effect of Ballot" is a good
idea, but would it not make more sense to change this so instead of a
property of the ballot, it was a modification to the Bylaws? In other
words, make the ballot update an appropriate section of the Bylaws to
say: "Nothing in these Bylaws is intended to supercede or replace
anything in the IPR Policy. In the event of a conflict between these
Bylaws and the IPR Policy, the IPR Policy shall govern."

This would mean that this rule wouldn't be buried in a ballot text
somewhere, but would be in the Bylaws itself for everyone to see in the
future.

Hope that helps :-)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to