On 13/01/17 22:22, Virginia Fournier wrote: > * 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? > > VMF: ok, I changed it back.
Only in one place; there is a second place where it needs reverting, in the third line. > * 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.” > > VMF: No, this provision applies to the Ballot/amendment. Let me change my question here, then. :-) Would it be generally a good idea, for the avoidance of doubt, to have the Bylaws 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." If it would be a good idea for the Bylaws to say this, should we add that to this ballot? Whatever you decide about the wisdom of doing that, with the first-mentioned tweak above I am happy to endorse this ballot, if that would be helpful. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public